Ashdan Properties Privet Limited Vs Harshad Despande / Resolution Professional (NCLT Mumbai)
Conclusion: Delayed submission by one day of the Resolution Plan by the Applicant should be condoned as it had not caused any delayed or prejudice to the interests of any of the parties or has affected the timelines of CIRP. Moreso, the non-consideration of their Plan submitted was bound to cause prejudice to the interest of the Applicant and would be against the objectives of the Code itself which emphasis on ‘maximization of the value of Corporate Debtor’.
Held: Applicant filed an application seeking reliefs under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The reliefs sought include: condoning a one-day delay in submitting the Applicant’s Resolution Plan, directing the Harshad Despande (Resolution Professional) to accept and present the Applicant’s plan to the Committee of Creditors (CoC) for consideration, evaluating the Applicant’s plan on par with others, and granting a stay on the consideration or voting of other resolution plans until the Application is disposed of. A A Estates Private Limited, the Corporate Debtor was admitted to the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) with Mr. Harshad Deshpande appointed as the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP). Despite multiple calls for Expressions of Interest (EOI), initially on July 28 and again on August 29, 2023, there was no response. Consequently, the CoC decided on November 8, 2023 to republish the EOI and opt for asset sales. Applicant requested the IRP to share EOI details on November 22, 2023, and submitted the EOI and required documents on December 4, 2023. After verifying the initial submission, the IRP requested additional information from the Applicant which was promptly provided. The provisional list of Prospective Resolution Applicants (PRAs) was published on December 16, 2023 and the final list on December 30, 2023. Information Memorandum, Evaluation Matrix, and Request for Resolution Plan (RFRP) were made available on January 1, 2024 with the submission deadline set for February 5, 2024 later extended to February 14, 2024. Applicant faced difficulties accessing essential documents. IT requested an extension, but received no response and submitted their Resolution Plan on February 15, 2024, a day after the deadline, along with an Earnest Money Deposit (EMD). While the IRP initially accepted the submission without raising issues, the Applicant was later informed that their plan was not considered by the CoC due to its late submission. It was held that the last date of submission of the Resolution Plan was 14 February 2024 and the Applicant submitted its Resolution Plan on 15 February 2024. Whereas the Plans were to be considered by the CoC on 16 February 2024. Thus one fact was absolutely clear that the delayed submission of the Plan by the Applicant had not caused any delayed or prejudice to the interests of any of the parties or has affected the timelines of CIRP. The non-consideration of their Plan submitted was bound to cause prejudice to the interest of the Applicant and would be against the objectives of the Code itself which emphasis on ‘maximization of the value of Corporate Debtor’. Tribunal therefore concluded that the delay of 24 hours/1 day in the submission of the Resolution Plan was caused by legitimate challenges in accessing necessary information. Therefore, the delay deserves to be condoned.
