National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Confirms Extension Of Time For Payment
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Confirms Extension Of Time For Payment Appellant Tribunal agreed that since the Appellants had made the necessary payments and the only difference that remained was monitoring period fee and expenses, there was no reason to pass an order The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) upheld the order passed by the National Company Law...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Confirms Extension Of Time For Payment
Appellant Tribunal agreed that since the Appellants had made the necessary payments and the only difference that remained was monitoring period fee and expenses, there was no reason to pass an order
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) upheld the order passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at the New Delhi Bench, which approved the extension of time for the payment of the Resolution Plan.
The matter titled Vrinda Sarawgi And Anr v Pooja Bahry And Anr was heard by the Principal Bench of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal at New Delhi, comprising of Justice A.I.S. Cheema and Dr Alok Srivastava.
The matter relates to the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) of the Corporate Debtor – Swastik Aqua Ltd whose Resolution Plan was approved but due to certain difficulties the Monitoring Committee agreed to an extension of time for payment and referred it to the National Company Law Tribunal. The National Company Law Tribunal approved the extension of time vide impugned order dated 8 June 2021. The present appeal was filed to calculate the period for extension from the date of the impugned order.
The Appellants were the Successful Resolution Applicants and the Respondent was the Erstwhile Resolution Professional while another Respondent was the Sole Financial Creditor. However, during the intervening time, the Appellants made the necessary payments and the only difference that remained was the monitoring period fee and expenses. The Respondents admitted to this fact as well. The Appellants submitted that they have undertaken through email dated 14 July 2021 to make the necessary payment and stated that they would honour the email sent.
The bench noted such email on record and found no specific orders were required to be passed in this matter. The appeal was disposed of since there was no need to interfere with the order of the National Company Law Tribunal.
