Nag Yang Shoes Pvt. Ltd.

Liquidator is entitled to claim exclusion of period of lockdown imposed by the Central Government in wake of Covid – 19 outbreak, as adumbrated in Regulation 47A of Liquidation Process Regulations, if it applies to the facts and circumstances – CA Mahalingam Suresh Kumar Liquidator of M/s Nag Yang Shoes Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT Chennai

NCLT by taking into consideration all the facts mentioned above, feels that it is just and proper to extend the Liquidation period for a further period of one year from 06.04.2020 and in the said circumstances, the Liquidation period of the Corporate Debtor stands extended for a further period Of one year from 06.04.2020 and the Liquidator shall make every endeavour to complete the liquidation process within the extended period of one year and not to seek for any further extension. It is needless to mention here that the Applicant / Liquidator is entitled to claim exclusion of period of lockdown imposed by the Central Government in wake of Covid – 19 outbreak, as adumbrated in Regulation 47A of IBBI Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board Of India (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016, if it applies to the facts and circumstances. The Liquidator in view of the extension granted as above, is directed to abide by the model timelines as prescribed by IBBI in Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board Of India (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016 and thereby complete the process in all earnest and in accordance with the said Regulations including filing of reports as required, with this Tribunal. Accordingly, IA/421/2020 stands allowed on aforementioned terms.

Liquidator is entitled to claim exclusion of period of lockdown imposed by the Central Government in wake of Covid – 19 outbreak, as adumbrated in Regulation 47A of Liquidation Process Regulations, if it applies to the facts and circumstances – CA Mahalingam Suresh Kumar Liquidator of M/s Nag Yang Shoes Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT Chennai Read Post »

Mr. S.S. Chockalingam Vs. Mr. Ca Mahalingam Suresh Kumar (Liquidator) – NCLT Chennai

The AA observed that there does not appear any provisions in the I&B Code, 2016 to give extension of time as far as the bidding process is concerned. Moreover, the Liquidator has already negotiated with the 2nd highest bidder who has already made payment which is equivalent to the amount, which was offered by the applicant being the highest bidder. In other words, the 2nd bidder, being in a position to make the payment of the same amount, has become the successful bidder and made the payment well in time. Therefore, in the circumstances, the application has become infructuous and the same stands dismissed.

Mr. S.S. Chockalingam Vs. Mr. Ca Mahalingam Suresh Kumar (Liquidator) – NCLT Chennai Read Post »

Scroll to Top