2020 (12) TMI 954

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....gned Order dated 09.12.2020 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad, Court 2) in I.A. 886 of 2020 in CP (IB) 257/NCLT/AHM/2019. The Impugned Order which is a short order which reads as under :-  "ORDER Advocate, Mr. Pavan Godiawala appeared on behalf of the Resolution Applicant. Advocate, Mr. Monaal Davawala appeared on behalf of the RP. RP, Mr. George Samuel is present in person. Advocate, Mr. Raju Kothari appeared on behalf of the COC. The instant application is filed by one of the Resolution Applicants, whose Resolution Plan was already rejected by the COC. Since, there was no viable Resolution Plan, the COC passed a resolution for liquidatio....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cation so filed by RP, notice was issued to the COC. However, it is the prime duty of the RP to call and convene the meeting of COC in time bound manner and file necessary application to that effect. On 26.11.2020, the 90 days have been extended beyond 180 days and thereafter the liquidation application has been filed. Thus, the CIRP period has already been expired. It is also a matter of record that the Applicant has never approached to the RP with his revised Plan/offer and have directly approached to this Adjudicating Authority, when an application under Section 33 of the IB code is already filed and COC is/are no more in existence. Under such circumstances, the instant application is premature and not maintainable. Mor....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n be made to save the Corporate Debtor - M/s Jason Dekor Pvt. Ltd. from liquidation. 4. Issue Notice. 5. Mr. Ravi Pahwa, Advocate appears on behalf of Respondent No. 1 and Ms. Sangya Negi, Advocate appears on behalf of Respondent No. 2 (Indian Overseas Bank). Formal service of notice is dispensed with by both. 6. The Learned Counsel are not disputing that Respondent No. 2 is 'Committee of Creditors' having 100% voting right. The Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 2 submits that if this Hon'ble Tribunal directs the Respondent No. 2 is ready to consider the revised Resolution Plan (Annexure P/6). Counsel for Respondent No. 1 does not object. In view of above, an effort may be made if 'Committee of Creditors' accepts the revised Resol....