TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 861
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r an extension of time for the purposes of making deposit of the balance amount, that was due to be paid for the execution of Scheme of Arrangement. By virtue of impugned order, the said application was rejected and as a consequence thereto, it had resulted into the cancellation of the Scheme of Arrangement that, was entered into between the parties as per provisions contained under Section 230-232 of the Companies Act, 2013. 2. During the liquidation process of M/s. RA Samy Trading Private Limited, the Corporate Debtor, the Appellant, has proposed a scheme of arrangement in his status of being that, of a Successful Scheme Proponent, offering a proposal for settlement in relation to the Corporate Debtor i.e., M/s. RA Samy Trading Private Limited. The CIRP Process of the Corporate Debtor had commenced on 30.04.2019, and it ended in failure, resulting into the initiation of a liquidation process by an order that was passed on 20.04.2021. It has come on record that the liquidator undertook the auction proceedings for the sale of the assets of the Corporate Debtor, in the liquidation process, but the three auction proceedings, which were undertaken by the liquidator, remained unsucc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Clause 6.15 of the Approved Scheme, it was made clear that the payment envisaged in the Scheme of Arrangement shall be facilitated through the self-earned funds and borrowings of the Scheme Proponent. 5. In accordance with the definition as contemplated under the Clause 2.2.4 of the scheme, "effective date" would be the date of approval of the scheme by Learned NCLT. Relevant clause 2.4 of clause 2 of the Scheme dated 25.11.2022 is extracted hereunder: - "2.4 "Effective Date" means the date of approval of the Scheme by the Hon'ble NCLT". Thus, the "effective date", in the instant case, would be 22.03.2024 when the scheme stood approved by the Learned NCLT. 6. The case of the Appellant is that, in compliance of the conditions of the Approved Scheme of Arrangement, he had already paid the initial amount of 10% of the settlement amount to the Punjab National Bank along with the interest that would be payable on it for the delayed payment. The Appellant had also separately paid the provident fund amount that, was due to the EPFO, Chennai, as well as 10% of the liquidation cost. The Appellant has come with a case in this Company Appeal that, no further progress in the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Registrar of Companies/MCA, the status could not be changed. 8. The reliefs prayed for in the Application IA(IBC)/2232(CHE)/2024 on 19.09.2024 by invoking the provisions contained under Section 60(5) of the I & B Code, 2016, by the Appellant are given below: - "Relief(s) sought. In view of the facts mentioned above, the Applicant herein prays for the following reliefs - a. Provide an extension of 90 days for the implementation of the Scheme of Arrangement from 21.09.2024 to 21.12.2024 to make the payment of around of Rs. 14,00,00,000/- for the execution Scheme of Arrangement. b. Pass an order of ad-interim stay restraining the Respondents or any person claiming through and from them, from taking any adversarial or precipitative measures against the Corporate Debtor and Scheme Proponent; c. Requiring for the Monitoring Committee to co-ordinate and aid in obtaining the requisite licenses. d. Pass such other orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and thus render justice". 9. Learned NCLT, after taking up for consideration the said application for extension of time, first proceeded to pass an order directing Respondent....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f plan obligations. The Applicant also filed an Affidavit dated 24.04.2025 stating that he would be discharging the obligations to secured financial creditor amounting to Rs. 14.25 crore along with interest @12% till the date of payment as well as the CIRP and liquidation expenses in full on or before 10.05.2025. However the Respondent stated that the payment needs to be ensured before on 08.05.2025. Therefore this court orders the above payment obligation to be completed on or before 08.05.2025 failing which plan proposal will be cancelled". 12. The proceedings in respect of the said Application IA(IBC)/2232(CHE)/2024 were taken up subsequently on production of demand drafts and the cheque showing his intention to comply by the order of 09.05.2025, where time line was extended to 28.05.2025. During the hearing dated 17.06.2025, Financial Creditor / Punjab National Bank submitted that they want to proceed with liquidation; the case was subsequently taken up on 15.07.2025 where Learned NCLT after observing that the Appellant has not complied with his commitment to pay by 08.05.2025 and that he has not fulfilled his payment commitments in spite of several opportunities, proceeded ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....everal opportunities being granted to Scheme Proponent, the conditions of the Scheme that have not been complied with and therefore, the relief for extension of time should not be granted. Similar was the expression given by the Learned Counsels for the Respondents on record, wherein, they have vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of extension of time on the ground that, the Appellant would not be entitled for any further extension for the reason being that the period of extension as sought for in the application, that is, the period from 21.09.2024 to 21.12.2024 has long expired and the prayer sought for itself had become redundant with the efflux of time and hence, no further extension could be granted because, thereafter no further extension beyond the aforesaid period has been prayed for in the Application. 15. On the contrary, the argument of the Learned Counsel for the Appellant is that, the grant of an extension for the implementation of the scheme under Section 230-232 of the Companies Act, 2013, is exclusively falling within the discretionary domain of the Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal too, to exercise its discretion owing to the provisions contained under Sect....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....4. 526387 (ICICI) dated 02.06.2025 1,00,00,000 5. 526391 (ICICI) dated 02.06.2025 1,00,00,000 6. 526390 (ICICI) dated 02.06.2025 1,00,00,000 7. 526392 (ICICI) dated 02.06.2025 1,00,00,000 8. 526393 (ICICI) dated 02.06.2025 1,00,00,000 9. 048082 (SBI) dated 02.06.2025 1,00,00,000 10. 526472 (ICICI) dated 24.07.2025 1,00,00,000 11. 526473 (ICICI) dated 24.07.2025 1,00,00,000 12. 526474 (ICICI) dated 24.07.2025 1,00,00,000 13. 526475 (ICICI) dated 24.07.2025 1,00,00,000 14. 526476 (ICICI) dated 24.07.2025 1,00,00,000 15. 526477 (1CIC) dated 24.07.2025 1,00,00,000 16. 526478 (ICICI) dated 28.07.2025 50,00,000 17. 526479 (ICICI) dated 29.07.2025 1,50,00,000 18. 526481 (ICIC) dated 29.07.2025 15,00,000 19. 526487 (ICICI) dated 01.08.2025 3,00,00,000 20. 143971 (IOB) dated 02.08.2025 1,89,95,000 21. 526489 (ICICI) dated 04.08.2025 10,05,000 17. But the same was declined to be accepted by the Respondents, contending that, since they are opposing the acceptance of the Scheme of Arrangement as of now, they are not willing to accept ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the payment of the amount payable under the Approved Resolution Plan. The relevant observation made in para 20 is extracted hereunder: - "20. We, thus, are satisfied that Adjudicating Authority has jurisdiction to grant extension of timeline in making the payment in a Resolution Plan and the view of the Adjudicating Authority that granting of extension of the timeline is modification of the terms of the Resolution Plan is not a correct view. Further, for extension of timeline it is not necessary that CoC should express its concurrence, only then the Adjudicating Authority can exercise its jurisdiction. The jurisdiction is there with the Adjudicating Authority in appropriate case. Granting extension of time in payment as per Resolution Plan for implementation of the Resolution Plan, appropriate jurisdiction is always vested with the Adjudicating Authority to pass appropriate order. We have already noticed that SRA has sent a letter to the Bank on 10.11.2023 citing the arbitration award dated 09.11.2023, which has been received by the Corporate Debtor of Rs. 102 lakhs". 19. We too had an occasion to deal with the similar issue about the purpose and object of extension of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by the Tribunal under sub-section (6), is that the scheme attains a binding character upon stakeholders including the liquidator who has been appointed under the IBC. In this backdrop, it is difficult to accept the submission of Mr Bajaj that Section 230 of the 2013 Act is a standalone provision which has no connect with the provisions of the IBC." 18. Thus, it enjoins that a concerted attempt should be made for the revival of the Corporate Debtor, so as to save it from the prospect of a corporate death and that the consequences of the approval of the scheme of revival, or the compromise and the sanction thereafter by the Ld. Tribunal, isthat the scheme attains a binding character upon the stakeholders including the Liquidator, who has been appointed under the I & B Code, 2016, who then will have to ensure the enforceability of the scheme of arrangement even after the expiry of the time period as provided therein, owing to the provisions contained under Section 230(6) of the Companies Act, 2013. 19. Owing to the above, the impugned order denying to grant the extension of time as sought for, merely because of the fact that there had been earlier extensions granted....