J&K&L HC Quashes 65-Year-Old's Detention, says Cattle Smuggling isn't Public Disorder  ||  Karnataka HC Bars Denial of MV Inspector Posts over Experience with Non-Existent HGV/HPV Vehicles  ||  P&H HC: Lengthy Incarceration alone is No Substantial Change for Repeat Bail Plea  ||  Meghalaya HC Flags Amicus' Non-Appearance amid Lawyers' Strike, Stresses Loyalty to Justice  ||  MP HC: Arms Act doesn't allow Sports Firearm Licence Conversion to Self-Defence Category  ||  Delhi HC: Public Funding of LTC, CGHS Benefits doesn't Mandate Personal Disclosure under RTI  ||  Delhi HC: Fake Caste Certificate alone cannot Justify Removing Advocate from State Rolls  ||  Delhi HC Refuses to Stop Sale of 47 Law Books in Family Copyright Dispute  ||  Supreme Court: S. 394 IPC Conviction Requires Proof of Robbery or Attempted Robbery  ||  Supreme Court Questions MP HC's Cryptic Reduction of Murder Conviction as 'Shocking'    

Whispering Tower Flat Owner Welfare Association Vs. Abhay Narayan Manudhane, RP of the Corporate Debtor and Ors. - (NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL) (04 Jan 2022)

Insolvency resolution process has to be completed within 330 days maximum, but in exceptional cases, the period can be extended by Adjudicating Authority/Appellate Tribunal

MANU/NL/0007/2022

Insolvency

Present Appeals have been filed against judgment passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, rejecting the application filed by the Resolution Professional seeking extension of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). All the Appellants are aggrieved by the rejection of Application filed by Resolution Professional before the Adjudicating Authority for extension of CIRP period.

The object of the IB Code is the resolution of the insolvency of a Corporate Debtor. Efforts of all stakeholders have to be towards resolution of insolvency. There can be no dispute that, the law mandates that CIRP proceedings have to be concluded within 330 days. Hon'ble Supreme Court, after noticing the above requirement of 330 days in Section 12, laid down in Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Ltd. vs. Satish Kumar Gupta and Ors. that normally as per law, insolvency resolution process has to be completed within 330 days maximum, but in exceptional cases, the period can be extended by Adjudicating Authority/Appellate Tribunal.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court time and again reminded that, the object of IBC is to resolve the insolvency resolution process and liquidation is to be adopted as a last resort. The Tribunal in the facts of the present case are of the view that, Adjudicating Authority ought to have given reasonable extension of period for proceeding further with Resolution Project Wise for which 25 Expression of Interests have already been received with the Resolution Professional.

The order of the Adjudicating Authority is set aside. Extension of 90 days is granted from the date of this order during which period the Resolution Professional and the Committee of Creditors may complete the Project Wise Resolution as decided in their meeting on 8th September, 2021. Appeal allowed.

Tags : PERIOD   EXTENSION   ENTITLEMENT  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved