In the matter of Maharashtra Seamless Ltd. Vs. State Bank of India & Ors. CA(AT)(Ins) No. 1039 of 2020

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process has to be conducted and carried on in accordance with the provisions of the ‘I&B Code’ which prescribes timelines. Of course, withdrawal of the application based on consideration by Committee of Creditors and settlement are part of the same process but whatever emerges, same should materialize within the prescribed timelines.

The limited issue raised in this appeal is in respect of failure on the part of the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Hyderabad Bench, Special Bench to adhere to the timelines for bringing the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (‘CIRP’ for short) to logical conclusion.

Mr. Arun Kathpalia, Senior Advocate representing the Appellant submits that even the Expression of Interest has not been issued by the Resolution Professional despite crossing the timelines specified in the relevant Regulations.

Mr. Y. Suryanarayana, Advocate representing the Resolution Professional submits that the Appellant is neither a Creditor nor a Resolution Applicant and at the most he can be a Prospective Resolution Applicant.

2. It is submitted that an OTS has been approved by the Committee of Creditors in its meeting held on 2nd November, 2020 and an application under Section 12A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“I&B Code” for short) for withdrawal is contemplated to be filed.

3. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process has to be conducted and carried on in accordance with the provisions of the ‘I&B Code’ which prescribes timelines. Of course, withdrawal of the application based on consideration by Committee of Creditors and settlement are part of the same process but whatever emerges, same should materialize within the prescribed timelines. In the given circumstances, without commenting on the merits of the case and the status of the Appellant, we dispose of the appeal with direction to the Adjudicating Authority to ensure that the CIRP is carried forward in accordance with the provisions of the ‘I&B Code’, regard being had to the timelines prescribed under the ‘I&B Code’.

Copy of this order be communicated to the Adjudicating Authority.

[Justice Bansi Lal Bhat]

Acting Chairperson

[Justice Anant Bijay Singh]

Member (Judicial)

LEGAL REFERENCES

CONCEPTS

CIRP

Similar Ripples

Questions

There is no question

In the matter of Maharashtra Seamless Ltd. Vs. State Bank of India & Ors. CA(AT)(Ins) No. 1039 of 2020

Write your Comment

Generic

Reportdata/1998.pdf

Would you like to edit this news ? Edit

Select Format

You get opportunity to take 30 day Challenge program.

Optional

Advanced

You get opportunity to take 30 day Challenge program.

Optional

Add tags

You get opportunity to take 30 day Challenge program.

Optional

PUBLISH IT

Don't sell
PUBLISH IT
Publish privately
SAVE AS DRAFT

Dont't publish now

The limited issue raised in this appeal is in respect of failure
on the part of the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal),
Hyderabad Bench, Special Bench to adhere to the timelines for bringing the
Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (‘CIRP’ for short) to logical conclusion. 
Mr. Arun Kathpalia, Senior Advocate representing the Appellant submits that
even the Expression of Interest has not been issued by the Resolution
Professional despite crossing the timelines specified in the relevant Regulations. 
Mr. Y. Suryanarayana, Advocate representing the Resolution Professional
submits that the Appellant is neither a Creditor nor a Resolution Applicant and at the most he can be a Prospective Resolution Applicant.
 2. It is submitted that an OTS has been approved by the Committee of
Creditors in its meeting held on 2nd November, 2020 and an application under
Section 12A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“I&amp;B Code” for short) for withdrawal is contemplated to be filed. 
3. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process has to be conducted and carried on in accordance with the provisions of the ‘I&amp;B Code’ which prescribes timelines. Of course, withdrawal of the application based on consideration by Committee of Creditors and settlement are part of the same process but whatever emerges, same should materialize within the prescribed timelines. In the given circumstances, without commenting on the merits of the case and the status of the Appellant, we dispose of the appeal with direction to the Adjudicating Authority to ensure that the CIRP is carried forward in accordance with the provisions of the ‘I&amp;B Code’, regard being had to the timelines prescribed under the ‘I&amp;B Code’. 
Copy of this order be communicated to the Adjudicating Authority.

[Justice Bansi Lal Bhat] 
Acting Chairperson

[Justice Anant Bijay Singh] 
Member (Judicial)

The limited issue raised in this appeal is in respect of failure
on the part of the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal),
Hyderabad Bench, Special Bench to adhere to the timelines for bringing the
Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (‘CIRP’ for short) to logical conclusion. 
Mr. Arun Kathpalia, Senior Advocate representing the Appellant submits that
even the Expression of Interest has not been issued by the Resolution
Professional despite crossing the timelines specified in the relevant Regulations. 
Mr. Y. Suryanarayana, Advocate representing the Resolution Professional
submits that the Appellant is neither a Creditor nor a Resolution Applicant and at the most he can be a Prospective Resolution Applicant.
 2. It is submitted that an OTS has been approved by the Committee of
Creditors in its meeting held on 2nd November, 2020 and an application under
Section 12A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“I&B Code” for short) for withdrawal is contemplated to be filed. 
3. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process has to be conducted and carried on in accordance with the provisions of the ‘I&B Code’ which prescribes timelines. Of course, withdrawal of the application based on consideration by Committee of Creditors and settlement are part of the same process but whatever emerges, same should materialize within the prescribed timelines. In the given circumstances, without commenting on the merits of the case and the status of the Appellant, we dispose of the appeal with direction to the Adjudicating Authority to ensure that the CIRP is carried forward in accordance with the provisions of the ‘I&B Code’, regard being had to the timelines prescribed under the ‘I&B Code’. 
Copy of this order be communicated to the Adjudicating Authority.

[Justice Bansi Lal Bhat] 
Acting Chairperson

[Justice Anant Bijay Singh] 
Member (Judicial)

Hi Thakurani,
I want to withdraw in my Thakurani wallet
Thanks,

Select the reason for validity check

I feel great..the news is still good.please give the reason too..thanks..

Why do you think the News as invalid?” Please mention the reason.

I appreciate your effort. May I request you to select one of the reasons from below.
I am marking this post and your reason to Thakurani Moderators. They will take appropriate action.
Thanks,

Write your reason

My Dear ,

Harassing

Spam

Ingenuine

Rotten

Alien

Plagiarism

Unformatted

In the matter of Maharashtra Seamless Ltd. Vs. State Bank of India & Ors. CA(AT)(Ins) No. 1039 of 2020