Merely seeking an extension of the timeline to submit a scheme of arrangement under section 230 of the Companies Act, 2013 without showing any evidence of sincere and serious efforts in preparation and formulation of such a scheme clearly shows that the request for extension of timeline is not supported by concrete action – Harish Sharma Vs. M/s. C & C Constructions Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi
NCLAT observed that the Appellant has not shown any proof of a scheme of compromise and arrangement that is formulated and ready, and proposed for consideration nor has the Appellant obtained the consent of 75% of the secured creditors of the corporate debtor in support of such a scheme. Merely seeking an extension of the timeline without showing any evidence of sincere and serious efforts in preparation and formulation of such a scheme clearly shows that the request for extension of timeline is not supported by concrete action. In view of the fact that the 90 days’ timeline prescribed under the Regulation 2-B of the Liquidation Process Regulations, 2016 had expired on 4.1.2023 and no evidence about readiness of the scheme was shown, we are of the clear opinion that the Adjudicating Authority has not committed any error in passing the Impugned Order.