TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (4) TMI 1368
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Advocates for R1. Mr. Krishnan Venugopal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Anush Mathkar, Ms. Annie Jain, Mr. Rishit Vimadalal, Mr. Raunak Dhillon, Ms. Isha Malik, Advocates for R2 to 4. Mr. Dhiraj Kumar Totala, Ms. Tanya Chib, Mr. Nishant Upadhyay, Advocates for R5. ORDER (Through Virtual Mode) Heard Shri Vikas Mehta, Learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant, Shri Krishnan Venugopal, Learned Senior Counsel for Respondent Nos.2 to 4 and Learned Counsel for the Successful Resolution Applicant. 2. This Appeal has been filed against the order dated 11.04.2022 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Mumbai Bench-I, by which two Applications i.e. I.A No. 766 of 2022 as well as I.A No. 686 of 2022 have been dispo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd urgent directions to the Respondents that the positive cash balance of the Corporate Debtor can be utilized only in the manner set out in para 9 above. (d) pass interim/ ad-interim reliefs in terms of prayers (a) to (c) above. (e) pass any other such order(s) as this Hon'ble Adjudicating Authority may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case." 3. The said Application came to be dismissed by the Adjudicating Authority by order dated 22.03.2022. Subsequently, another Application being I.A No.686 of 2022 in I.A No. 125 of 2022 in C.P. (IB) No. 2205/MB/2019 was filed by the Successful Resolution Applicant where following reliefs have been prayed:- "Relief Sought: In view of the above facts....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in a disposed of Application I.A. No. 125 of 2022 which Application was not clearly maintainable. It is submitted that in the proceeding of the lenders meeting held on 28.03.2022, it was observed that the Successful Resolution Applicant to seek additional time for CP fulfilment and not for exclusion. It is further submitted that the plan having contemplated implementation within 90 days and further 180 days, no time could have been granted for implementation subsequent to expiry of the said period of 270 days. He submits that the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority is contrary to the approved Resolution Plan. He further submits that the other condition with regard to Resolution Plan has not been satisfied. 6. Shri Krishnan Venugo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to be incurred by and in the name of the Corporate Debtor. However, the MC Lenders have declined approval for any payments, including from the ICD deposited by the Applicant with the Corporate Debtor, until the Expenses Application is decided by this Hon'ble Adjudicating Authority. A copy of the draft minutes of the 14th MC meeting dated 14 February 2022 is annexed as Annexure-5." 10. The Adjudicating Authority in the impugned order in paragraph 8 has made following observations while considering I.A No. 686 of 2022:- "8. The prayer in this Application is to exclude the period from 17.01.2022 till 22.03.2022 i.e. 65 days during which period the Application bearing IA No. 125 of 2022 was pending before this Tribunal. The Applicat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... it can be considered for grant of extension of time for implementation of the Resolution Plan and then by no stretch of imagination it can be said that by allowing this Application it would amount to modification of Resolution Plan. 20. In that view of the matter, we find that if the relief as sought for is refused, it will cause hurdle in revival of the Corporate Debtor which cannot be spirit of the Code. If no exclusion is granted it will also amount to automatic withdrawal of the Resolution Plan and the Corporate Debtor shall be posted into Liquidation which is neither the intention of the Code nor of the Plan Approval Order. Hence the Application is liable to be allowed excluding period of 65 days and thus extending the 'effec....