IN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL

SPECIAL BENCH, BENGALURU

(Through web-based Video-Conferencing Platform)

ITEM No.07
I.A.Nos.292, 406, 547,
594, 601, 631, 666, 755, 835,
836, 861/2023 & 01/2024 in
C.P.(IB)No.87/BB/2021

IN THE MATTER OF:

Mr. Aravindan Devarajan & Ors . … Petitioners

Vs.
M/s. Lalith Gangadhar Constructions Pvt. Ltd. … Respondent

Order under Section 7 of Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016

Order delivered on: 22.01.2024

CORAM:

JUSTICE (RETD.) T. KRISHNAVALLI

HON’BLE MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

SH. MANOJ KUMAR DUBEY

HON’BLE MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

PRESENT:
For the RP : Shri Sreenivas Patil
For the Respondent in
I.As.292 & 406/2023 : Shri Shravan S. Lokre
For the Applicant in I.A.835/2023 : Shri Aakash Sherwal

ORDER
I.A.No.292/2023:
1. Heard the Ld. Counsels appearing for the Applicant and the Respondents.
2. It is stated by the Ld. Counsel for the Respondent No.1 that he has filed
objections vide Dy.No.5285 dated 13.10.2023 for the Respondent Nos.1 to 8.
The same is taken on record.
3. The Ld. Counsel for the RP reports no rejoinder.
4. List the case on 20.02.2024.

I.A.No.406/2023:

1. Heard the Ld. Counsels appearing for the Applicant and the Respondents.
2. Vide Order dated 21.11.2023, Ld. Counsel for the Respondents were directed
to file objections within one week, failing which, their right to file reply shall
stand forfeited. However, the same is not filed till today. Finally, one week’s
 :2:
time is granted to the Respondents for filing their objections, failing which,
their right to file objections shall stand forfeited and the Application will be
decided based on the available record. Further, one week’s time thereafter is
granted to the Applicant for filing rejoinder, if any.
3. List the case on 20.02.2024.

I.A.Nos.547, 601, 755 & 861/2023:

1. I.A.No.547/2023: This Application has been filed on 26.07.2023 by the RP,
U/s.12(2) of the IBC, 2016 R/w. Section 60(5) of the IBC, 2016, R/w. Rule 11
of the NCLT Rules, 2016, seeking for extension of CIRP for a period of 30 days
from 21.07.2023 to 19.08.2023.
2. I.A.No.601/2023: This Application has been filed on 22.08.2023 by the RP,
U/s.12(2) of the IBC, 2016 R/w. Section 60(5) of the IBC, 2016, R/w. Rule 11
of the NCLT Rules, 2016, seeking for extension of CIRP for a period of 45 days
from 20.08.2023 to 03.10.2023.
3. I.A.No.755/2023: This Application has been filed on 04.10.2023 by the RP,
U/s.12(2) of the IBC, 2016 R/w. Section 60(5) of the IBC, 2016, R/w. Rule 11
of the NCLT Rules, 2016, seeking for extension of CIRP for a period of 60 days
from 04.10.2023 to 02.12.2023.
4. I.A.No.861/2023: This Application has been filed on 07.12.2023 by the RP,
U/s.12(2) of the IBC, 2016 R/w. Section 60(5) of the IBC, 2016, R/w. Rule 11
of the NCLT Rules, 2016, seeking for extension of CIRP for a period of 60 days
from 03.12.2023 to 31.01.2024.
5. Heard the Ld. Counsel appearing for the RP-Applicant.
6. In this connection, as per para nos.4 & 5 of the Order dated 27.06.2023 in
I.A.No.338/2023 this Adjudicating Authority has observed as under:
‘‘…4. However, in this case the CIRP period of 330 days had already
expired. Therefore, considering the exceptional circumstances mentioned in
the I.A., and also relying on the judgements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the case of Essar Steel India Limited through Authorized Signatory Vs.
Satish Kumar Gupta & Ors. (2019) 07 SC, wherein it is observed that “it is
only in exceptional cases that time can be extended, the general rule being
that 330 days is the outer limit within which resolution of the stressed assets
of the Corporate Debtor must take place beyond which it is to be driven into
liquidation”. Further, it is noticed that they have also filed List of Authorities
vide Diary No.3255 dated 21.06.2023, mentioning that in the case of Neel
Metal Products Ltd. Vs. CA Nirav Tarkkas & Anr. in Comp. App. (AT)
(Ins.)No.887 of 2022, the Hon’ble NCLAT, New Delhi vide Order dated
 :3:

28.07.2022, in which further period of 60 days has been granted beyond

330 days.
5. Accordingly I.A.No.338/2023 is hereby disposed of by extending the
time period for completion of the CIRP of the Corporate Debtor by a further
60 days from 22.05.2023. Further, the Applicant-RP is directed to expedite
the finalisation of the CIRP well before the period allowed today’’.

7. Accordingly, the extended period of 60 days after the original period of 330
days had already expired on 20.07.2023. It is noticed that RP has
subsequently filed these IAs repeatedly seeking further extension of time for
completion of CIRP by 30 days, 45 days, 60 days and 60 days respectively. A
perusal of these IAs shows that in all these identical prayers have been made
stating that the revised Resolution Plan was under discussion and is likely to
be finalised shortly, for which, these extensions were repeatedly sought.
During the course of proceedings before this Adjudicating Authority, every
time it was mentioned that within another two to three weeks’ time a revised
Resolution Plan is likely to be finalised. In the proceedings before us today i.e.
22.01.2024 also the Counsel for the RP stated that the revised Resolution Plan
is likely to be finalized within two to three weeks. Therefore, extension of time
was being sought.
8. We have carefully perused the Application and the arguments of the RP which
has been essentially the same. It is a matter of record that the maximum
allowable CIRP period of 330 days as envisaged in the second proviso to
Section 12 (3) of IBC, 2016 has already expired on 22.05.2023. Considering
the Applicant’s request in I.A.No.338/2023 that the Resolution Plan was likely
to be approved within a short period of time as it was in the final stage, further
extension was granted for a period of 60 days up to 20.07.2023 relying on the
Judgment mentioned above. However, it is noticed that the Applicant has
again been coming up with aforesaid IAs seeking further extensions on the
same ground. The provisions of the Code cannot be allowed to be made
redundant in this manner. The judgements of various Courts including the
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Essar Steel India Limited through Authorized
Signatory Vs. Satish Kumar Gupta & Ors., (supra) have clearly laid down that
it is only in exceptional cases that the time limit can be extended. The general
rule was that 330 days was the outer limit within which, resolution of the
stressed assets of the Corporate Debtor must take place.
 :4:

9. Considering the objectives of the Code, this Adjudicating Authority is

conscious the fact that all efforts have to be made towards resolution of the
Corporate Debtor, and the liquidation should only be a last resort. Therefore,
an extension of 60 days beyond 330 days was granted vide Order dated
27.06.2023. However, in accordance with the sequence of events as narrated
above, we are of the view that these subsequent Applications for repeated
extensions cannot be allowed in view of the fact that this Bench has already
been considerate and allowed a period of 60 days beyond a period of 330 days.
Even after passing of seven months after the Order dated 27.06.2023, there
is no sign of any Resolution Plan having being finalised and repeatedly same
requests are being made on the same ground for extension of time. Therefore,
we are of the considered opinion that these Applications do not deserve to be
allowed and further extensions cannot be granted.
10.In view of the above, I.A.Nos.547, 601, 755 & 861/2023 are hereby
dismissed.

I.A.No.835/2023:

1. Heard the Ld. Counsel appearing for the Applicant.

2. Issue notice to the Respondent. Registry is directed to prepare the notice and
Counsel for the Applicant is permitted to collect the notice and serve it on the
Respondent along with a copy of the Application and other material
documents through e-mail as well as by Speed Post and to file an Affidavit of
Service along with tracking reports in the Registry within one week.
3. Upon receipt of the notice, Respondent is directed to file its reply within two
weeks’, and one week thereafter is granted to the Applicant to file rejoinder, if
any, after duly serving the copy on the other side.
4. List the case along with other IAs on 20.02.2024.

-Sd- -Sd-
MANOJ KUMAR DUBEY T. KRISHNAVALLI
MEMBER (TECHNICAL) MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

Bhavya