TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (11) TMI 1281
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y', (National Company Law Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Court No.II), while passing the 'Impugned Order' dated 12.10.2022 in IA (IBC)/972/2022 in CP (IB) No.678/7/HDB/2018, at 'Paragraph Nos.11 to 16', had observed as under:- 11. "Shri Prakash, Learned Counsel appearing for the Liquidator states that the request of the applicant for extension of time was placed before the Stakeholders' Consultation Committee (SCC) on 21.09.2022. The Stakeholders' Consultation Committee has, by its decision dated 21.09.2022, rejected the request of the applicant and declined to grant extension of time to make the balance payment. Minutes of Meeting of 14th Stakeholders' Consultation Committee (SCC) is at Annexure R/3 (Page 33-39) of the Affidavit-in-Reply filed by Shri Pankaj Dhanuka, Liquidator. The relevant discussion is at Pages 36 and 37 of the Affidavit-in-Reply. 12. While it is the stand of the applicant that he was not called to the Meeting of 14th Stakeholders' Consultation Committee (SCC) held on 21.09.2022, despite specific direction of this Tribunal to the applicant to approach the Stakeholders' Consultation Committee, the Learned Counsel for the Liquidator, on the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in the present case. Hence it is not applicable to the present case. We also hasten to add that in matters like the present case, NCLT has to affirm to the timelines within the scope and ambit of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 to resolve the cases in liquidation of value of assets of the Corporate Debtor. If such time lines are not maintained the value of the assets gets deteriorated and the object of Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 will be lost". and ultimately 'dismissed' the 'Interlocutory Application', without Costs. 4. The 'Appellant' / 'Petitioner' in IA (IBC)/972/2022 in CP (IB) No.678/7/HDB/2018 (Filed under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and the IBBI (Regulation Process) Regulations, 2016, read with Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules, 2016), before the 'Adjudicating Authority'. (National Company Law Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Court No.II) had averred that the CP (IB) No.678/7/HDB/2018 was filed by the 'Financial Creditor', to initiate 'CIRP', in regard to the 'Corporate Debtor'. The said 'Petition' was 'Admitted', by the 'Adjudicating Authority', (National Company Law Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Court No.II) on 23.04.2019. By an 'Order d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dated 08.04.2022. Because of the unforeseen circumstances (including backing out of the 'International Investors of the 'Petitioner' / 'Appellant' and sharp depreciation in Mayanmar currency, within a short time), the 'Petitioner' / 'Appellant' was unable to 'disburse' the remaining 'Purchase Consideration'. These aspects were brought to the 'Notice' of the 'Respondent' / 'Liquidator' and the 'Petitioner' / 'Appellant' had prayed for an 'extension of time' before the 'Respondent' / 'Liquidator' to extend the time for effecting the 'Payment'. 9. The forceful stand of the 'Appellant', is that the 'United Amera Bank' had duly agreed to extend fund facility to the 'Appellant'. However, because of the 'current policy' in Mayanmar, wherein for every loan that was approved by the Bank, a prior permission from the Government is required and that the 'Bank' had informed the 'Appellant', that it was not in a position to disburse the required fund within 'Three to Four Months'. 10. Through a 'Letter dated 15.09.2022, the 'Appellant' / 'Petitioner' had informed the 'Respondent' / 'Liquidator', that due to the unforeseen event (including backing out of the International Investors of the '....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sets' and cancelled the 'Letter of Intent' dated 21.06.2022 and in fact the forfeiture was made by the 'Respondent' / 'Liquidator' through an 'E-Mail dated 20.09.2022. Also, that in the 14th meeting of the 'Stakeholders Consultation Committee', the 'Appellant' was invited to participate in the said 'Meeting', but, none was present for and on behalf of the 'Appellant' / 'Petitioner'. The 'Members' of the Stakeholders Consultation Committee', after deliberating the issues, at length, had 'Rejected', the request made by the 'Appellant' because it had 'defaulted' in 'honouring' the 'Terms of 'Letter of Intent' for the 2nd time. Moreover, in the 1st of 'E-Auction' that took place on 11.01.2022, the 'Appellant' was declared as a 'Successful Bidder' for 'Phase III Assets' and fails to furnish 'Performance Security' and also proposed payment time line of 6-9 months as against timeline of 1-3 months as per IBBI Regulations. Therefore, the 'Letter of Intent' issued to the 'Appellant' was cancelled in 1st 'E-Auction' round. 15. According to the 'Respondent' / 'Liquidator', the 'Appellant' / 'Petitioner' has paid only 10% of the 'Total Consideration' till date and there was no 'sufficient s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... due to 'Current policy' in 'Mayanmar', wherein for every 'Loan' i.e., approved by the 'Bank', prior permission from the 'Government' is required and the 'Bank' had informed the same to the 'Appellant' and the Bank would be in a position, to provide the required fund, within 'Three to Four Months'. 21. Not resting with the above, it is represented on behalf of the 'Appellant' that the 'Appellant' through the letter dated 15.09.2022 had informed the 'Liquidator' that due to 'Investor Fund' backing out of the 'International Investors' and sharp depreciation in 'Myanmar currency', within a short time the 'Appellant' was not able to disburse the 'entire purchase consideration' and hence, made a request before the 'Liquidator', to grant some 'Additional Time', approximately 'Four to Five Months' to pay the 'Purchase Consideration'. 22. It transpires that the 'Appellant' had 'pleaded' with the 'Liquidator' to the fact that the period of '90 days' from the receipt of 'Letter of Intent' dated 21.06.2022 is coming to an end on 18.09.2022. But due to the unforeseen circumstances, as mentioned aforesaid, the 'Appellant' was not in a position to make payment of the 'entire purchase consi....