Anil Tayal Vs Committee of Creditors of M/S. Horizon Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. (NCLAT)

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has ruled in favour of Anil Tayal, the Resolution Professional for M/s. Horizon Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. The NCLAT has directed that specific periods spent by the Resolution Professional in legal proceedings before the Adjudicating Authority should be excluded when calculating the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) period. This decision aims to ensure that the time taken for judicial interventions does not unfairly reduce the overall CIRP timeline.

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 120 of 2021

In the matter of:

Anil Tayal, Resolution Professional for M/s. Horizon
Buildcon Pvt. Ltd.
....Appellant
Vs.
Committee of Creditors of M/s. Horizon Buildcon
Pvt. Ltd.
 ....Respondent
Present:
Appellant: Mr. Abhishek Anand, Mr. Kunal Godhwani, Mr. Viren
Sharma, Advocates.
Respondent:

ORDER

(Through Virtual Mode)

23.02.2021: Resolution Professional of ‘M/s. Horizon Buildcon Pvt. Ltd.’(Corporate Debtor undergoing Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP))is aggrieved of declining of his prayer in terms of the impugned order dated 3rdFebruary, 2021 for exclusion of period consumed in legal proceedings before the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal) w.e.f 21st October,2020 till 9th November, 2020 and 12th January, 2021 to 3rd February, 2021 for purposes of calculation of CIRP period.

2. After hearing Mr. Abhishek Anand, learned counsel for the Appellant, we are of the view that the appeal can be disposed off without issuing notice to theRespondent- Committee of Creditors (COC) which itself had directed the Resolution Professional to seek extension of 60 days beyond the period of 270 days in the CIRP of the Corporate Debtor as reflected in para 2 (xix) of the impugned order.

3. After going through the records and hearing Mr. Abhishek Anand, learned counsel for the Appellant, we find that while the Adjudicating Authoritydeemed it fit, in the peculiar circumstances of the case, to extend time by 40 days beyond the extended time of 330 days for bringing the CIRP to a logicalconclusion, the Adjudicating Authority has not taken care to exclude the periodof judicial intervention viz. the period spent in pursuing the application seeking extension for exclusion to render the exercise productive. Mr. Abhishek Anand,learned counsel for the Appellant has brought to our notice that as a result ofexclusion of period of judicial intervention not been allowed, the extensiongranted has virtually proved to be futile and meaningless as even the extended period expired on 19th February, 2021.

4. On a careful consideration of the matter, we are of the consideredopinion that the period of judicial intervention w.e.f 21st October, 2020 till 9thNovember, 2020 (the period covering the time spent in pursuing the extensionapplication in the first instance) and 12th January, 2021 to 3rd February, 2021(i.e. the period for which the orders were reserved by the Adjudicating Authorityon the application) is justifiably required to be excluded while counting andcomputing the period of CIRP. We accordingly allow this appeal and directexclusion of period from 21st October, 2020 till 9th November, 2020 and 12thJanuary, 2021 to 3rd February, 2021 for the purposes of calculation of CIRPperiod. The appeal is accordingly disposed off.

Copy of this order be communicated to the Adjudicating Authority for information.

[Justice Bansi Lal Bhat]
Acting Chairperson
[Dr. Ashok Kumar Mishra]
Member (Technical)