COMMITTEE OF CREDITORS OF AMTEK AUTO LIMITED THROUGH CORPORATION BANKversusDINKAR T. VENKATSUBRAMANIAN AND OTHERS

740                       [2021]
               SUPREME COURT     9 S.C.R. 740
                              REPORTS                     [2021] 9 S.C.R.


A       COMMITTEE OF CREDITORS OF AMTEK AUTO LIMITED
                THROUGH CORPORATION BANK
                             v.
           DINKAR T. VENKATSUBRAMANIAN AND OTHERS
                        (Civil Appeal No. 6707 of 2019)
B
                            DECEMBER 01, 2021
                [M. R. SHAH AND SANJIV KHANNA, JJ.]
             Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – s. 12 – Initiation
      of insolvency resolution process – The respondent no.2-successful
C
      resolution applicant defaulted in its obligation – Therefore
      Adjudicating authority directed reconstitution of Committee of
      Creditors (COC) of corporate debtor, for reconsideration of
      Resolution Plan given by resolution applicant (Respondent no.3) –
      Respondent no.3 was declared as ineligible applicant – Appellate
D     Authority ordered liquidation of corporate debtor – Appeal to
      Supreme Court by COC – Liquidation proceedings were stayed –
      As per direction of Supreme Court, in fresh resolution process
      respondent no.3 was approved as successful resolution applicant –
      However, respondent no.3 tried to withdraw the resolution plan –
      Move of respondent no.3 to withdraw from resolution plan was
E
      rejected by Supreme Court and the resolution plan of respondent
      no.3 was approved by Adjudicating authority – Since respondent
      no.3 did not act upon the resolution plan – COC filed contempt
      petition and respondent no.3 filed application for rectification of
      the order of Supreme Cour whereby the Court had rejected
F     application of respondent no.3 for withdrawal from the resolution
      plan – Applications of COC as well as respondent no.3 were
      dismissed – Held : As per s. 12 entire resolution process had to be
      completed within the period stipulated therein – In view of multiple
      proceedings the time limit has been condoned – In order to avoid
      further delay, the parties concerned are directed to implement the
G
      approved resolution plan.
            Disposing of the appeal, the Court
            HELD: The entire resolution process has to be completed
      within the period stipulated under Section 12 of the Insolvency
H
                                     740
 COMMITTEE OF CREDITORS OF AMTEK AUTO LTD. THROUGH CORP.              741
         BANK v. DINKAR T. VENKATSUBRAMANIAN


and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and any deviation would defeat the          A
object and purpose of providing such time limit. However, by
earlier order, the time limit has been condoned in view of the
various litigations pending between the parties and in the peculiar
facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, any further delay
in implementation of the approved resolution plan submitted by
                                                                      B
the successful resolution applicant (Respondent no.3) Deccan
Value Investor (DVI) which as such has been approved by the
adjudicating authority in the month of July, 2020 and even the
appeal against the same has been dismissed subsequently, any
further delay would defeat the very object and purpose of
providing specific time limit for completion of the insolvency        C
resolution process, as mandated under Section 12 of the IBC.
Therefore, the concerned parties to the approved resolution plan
and/or connected with implementation of the approved resolution
plan including IMC ate directed to complete the implementation
of the approved resolution plan. It is further directed that on
                                                                      D
implementation of the approved resolution plan and even as per
the approved resolution plan, an amount of Rs. 500 crores now
deposited by DVI-successful resolution applicant (Respondent
no.3) be transferred to the respective lenders/financial creditors
as per the approved resolution plan and/or as mutually agreed.
[Para 10][750-G-H; 751-A-D]                                           E
      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.6707
of 2019.
      From the Judgment and Order dated 16.08.2019 of the National
Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in Company Appeal (AT)      F
(Insolvency) No.219 of 2019.
      Tushar Mehta, SG, Anoop Rawat, Siddhant Kant, S. S. Shroff,
Advs. for the Appellant.
      Parag Tripathi, Sr. Adv., Gyanendra Kumar, Ms. Shikha Tandon,
                                                                      G
M/s Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas, Mayank Pandey, E. C. Agrawala,
Sanjay Bhatt, Ms. Niharika Sharma, Anirudh Dvsaj, Rabin Majumdar,
Ms. Akansha Srivastava, Arvind Kumar Gupta, Ms. Shivani Sharma,
Ravindra Sadanand Chingale, P. S. Sudheer, Ms. Sonam Gupta, M/s
Corporate Legal Partners, Advs. for the Respondents.
                                                                      H
742             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2021] 9 S.C.R.


A           The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
            M. R. SHAH, J.
            1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
      and order dated 16.08.2019 passed by the National Company Law
      Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Appellate
B     Authority’) in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 219 of 2019, the
      Committee of Creditors of Amtek Auto Limited through Corporation
      Bank (hereinafter referred to as the ‘COC’) has preferred the present
      appeal.
            2. The present appeal, as such, has a chequered history.
C
             3. Pursuant to an application made under Section 7 of the
      Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the
      ‘IBC’), the corporate insolvency resolution process was initiated against
      Amtek Auto Limited – Corporate Debtor on 24.07.2017. A resolution
      professional was appointed. An advertisement was published by the
D     resolution professional inviting prospective resolution applicants to submit
      a Resolution Plan by 31.08.2017. The Resolution Plans submitted by
      respondent No.3 herein – Deccan Value Investor LP (hereinafter
      referred to as the ‘DVI’) and respondent no.2 herein – M/s Liberty
      House Group Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the “Liberty”)
E     were considered by the COC. However, DVI withdrew its Resolution
      Plan and therefore the revised plan of Liberty was considered and
      approved by the COC on 2.4.2018. Subsequently, the Resolution Plan
      submitted by Liberty came to be approved by the National Company
      Law Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to
      as the “Adjudicating Authority”) vide order dated 25.07.2018. However,
F     the successful resolution applicant – Liberty did not act as per the
      approved Resolution Plan. Thereafter, number of proceedings were
      initiated against the successful resolution applicant – Liberty.
             3.1 An application under Section 60(5) read with Section 74(3) of
      the IBC was filed by the COC/financial creditors before the Adjudicating
G     Authority informing that the successful resolution applicant – Liberty
      has failed to act as per the approved Resolution Plan and it was prayed
      to reinstate the COC and the resolution professional to ensure that the
      Corporate Debtor remain as a going concern. Further prayer was made
      to grant 90 days to the resolution professional to make another attempt
H
 COMMITTEE OF CREDITORS OF AMTEK AUTO LTD. THROUGH CORP.                        743
   BANK v. DINKAR T. VENKATSUBRAMANIAN [M. R. SHAH, J.]


for a fresh process rather than forcing the Corporate Debtor into liquidation   A
on account of fraud committed by Liberty.
        3.2 The Adjudicating Authority held that Liberty has defaulted in
its obligation under the approved Resolution Plan and granted liberty to
the COC and the resolution professional to approach the appropriate
authority under the IBC for the determination of the wilful default. The        B
Adjudicating Authority did not accede to the request for carrying out a
fresh process by inviting the plans again but directed the reconstitution
of the COC for re-consideration of the Resolution Plan submitted by
DVI. The Adjudicating Authority disposed of the said application/appeal
accordingly.
                                                                                C
       3.3 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by
the adjudicating authority dated 13.02.2019, the COC filed an appeal
before the appellate authority – NCLAT. That thereafter, the resolution
professional invited fresh applications from prospective resolution
applicants and called upon them to submit their resolution plans. Over
and above two other resolution applicants, an interest was also received        D
from DVI on 31.05.2019. However, the same was rejected and DVI
was declared as an ineligible resolution applicant. Against the said
rejection, DVI filed an appeal before the appellate authority. Vide order
dated 26.06.2019, the appellate authority held that in light of the earlier
order dated 20.05.2019 the COC was required to consider all resolution          E
plans subject to the pending appeal. The DVI submitted the revised
resolution plan. However subsequently, the appellate authority by the
impugned judgment and order disposed of the appeal filed by the COC
and rejected the prayer for exclusion of time. Consequently, virtually
ordered the liquidation of the Corporate Debtor.
                                                                                F
       4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and order dated 16.08.2019 passed by the appellate authority, the COC
has preferred the present appeal contending inter alia that (a) the
Corporate Debtor is financially viable entity and there is enough interest
in the market for submission of a resolution plan for the Corporate Debtor;
(b) Resolution of the financial affairs of a distressed company is primary      G
aim of the Code and a failure/infirmity on the part of a resolution applicant
ought not to undermine the primary mischief sought to be resolved; (c)
Maximisation of the value of the assets of the Corporate Debtor is
imbedded in the Code and even forms the part of its Preamble and
therefore, an opportunity ought to be granted to the Committee of               H
744             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2021] 9 S.C.R.


A     Creditors to make an attempt at resolution specially keeping in view the
      availability of suitable resolution applicants in the market; and (d) Liberty,
      by its deliberate failure in implementing the Approved Resolution Plan,
      has defrauded the Adjudicating Authority, the Committee of Creditors
      and all the stakeholders of the Corporate Debtor, hence, the period
      extended in proceeding with the CIR Process with Liberty as a Resolution
B
      Applicant ought to be excluded to uphold the principles underlining the
      Code.
            5. By order dated 6.9.2019, while issuing notice in the present
      appeal, this Court stayed the liquidation proceedings, until further orders.
C            5.1 When the appeal was taken up for further hearing on
      24.09.2019, it was submitted on behalf of the COC that the resolution
      professional may be permitted to invite the fresh offers within a period
      of 21 days. This Court permitted the resolution professional to invite
      fresh offers within a period of 21 days. This Court further passed an
      order that within two weeks thereafter, the COC shall take a final call in
D     the matter and the decision of the COC and the offers received be
      placed before this Court. DVI also submitted the fresh resolution plan
      which was approved by the COC with 70% majority. By order dated
      8.6.2020, this Court relegated the matter of IA No. 48906/2020 filed by
      the COC for appropriate directions/orders to the adjudicating authority
E     to consider the same and pass appropriate orders, after hearing the
      parties. This Court also observed that the time spent before the
      adjudicating authority and before this Court be excluded for calculating
      long stop date. DVI tried to withdraw from resolution plan. The same
      came to be specifically rejected by this Court vide order dated 18.06.2020.
      This Court further observed that in case the DVI indulges in such kind
F     of practice, it will be treated as contempt of this Court in view of the
      various orders passed by this Court at its instance.
             5.2 That the resolution plan submitted by the DVI came to be
      approved by the adjudicating authority – NCLT in the month of July,
      2020. Since the approved resolution plan submitted by the DVI was not
G     acted upon by the DVI, the COC filed Contempt Petition No. 524/2020
      before this Court. DVI also filed an application for rectification of the
      earlier order dated 18.06.2020 by which this Court rejected the prayer
      of the DVI for withdrawal of the offer and observed that in case the
      DVI indulges in such kind of practice, it will be treated as contempt of
H     this Court. Both the contempt petition filed by the COC as well as the
 COMMITTEE OF CREDITORS OF AMTEK AUTO LTD. THROUGH CORP.                      745
   BANK v. DINKAR T. VENKATSUBRAMANIAN [M. R. SHAH, J.]


application for rectification filed by the DVI were heard together. By a      A
detailed order dated 23.02.2021, this Court dismissed the application for
rectification filed by the DVI of the order of this Court dated 18.06.2020
instituted by the DVI.
      5.3 While rejecting the said application, this Court specifically
observed that DVI’s application for rectification is an attempt to renege     B
from the resolution plan which it submitted and to resile from its
obligations. It was further observed that this is a devious attempt which
must be disallowed. Simultaneously, this Court also dismissed the
contempt petition. However, while dismissing the contempt petition, it is
observed in para 38 as under:
                                                                              C
      “38 The issue which needs to be addressed is whether recourse
      to the contempt jurisdiction is valid and whether it should be
      exercised in the facts of this case. Undoubtedly, as we have noted
      earlier, the conduct of DVI has not been bona fide. The extension
      of time in the course of the judicial process before this Court
      enures to the benefit of DVI as a resolution applicant whose            D
      proposal was considered under the auspices of the directions of
      the Court. DVI attempted to resile from its obligations and a reading
      of its application which led to the passing of the order of this
      Court dated 18 June 2020 will leave no doubt about the fact that
      DVI was not just seeking an extension of time but a re-negotiation      E
      of its resolution plan after its approval by the CoC. Then again,
      despite the order of this Court dated 18 June 2020 rejecting the
      attempt of DVI, it continued to persist in raising the same pleas
      within and outside the proceedings before the NCLAT. The
      conduct of DVI is lacking in bona fides. The issue however is
      whether this conduct in raising the untenable plea and in failing to    F
      adhere to its obligations under the resolution plan can per se be
      regarded as a contempt of the order of this Court dated 18 June
      2020. DVI was undoubtedly placed on notice of the order that
      should it proceed in such terms, it would invite the invocation of
      the contempt jurisdiction. Having said that, it is evident that the     G
      order of this Court dated 18 June 2020 rejected the IA moved by
      DVI and as a necessary consequence, the basis on which the
      reliefs in the IA were sought. Therefore correctly, it has been
      now stated on behalf of the DVI that it will not set-up a plea of
      force majeure in view of the dismissal of its IA on 18 June 2020.
                                                                              H
746                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2021] 9 S.C.R.


A           29 However lacking in bona fides the conduct of DVI was, we
            must be circumspect about invoking the contempt jurisdiction as
            setting up an untenable plea should not in and by itself invite the
            penal consequences which emanate from the exercise of the
            contempt jurisdiction. Likewise, the default of DVI in fulfilling the
            terms of the resolution plan may invite consequences as envisaged
B
            in law. On the balance, we are of the considered view that it
            would not be appropriate to exercise the contempt jurisdiction of
            this Court. During the course of the hearing, Dr Abhishek Manu
            Singhvi, learned Senior Counsel has relied on the affidavit filed in
            response to the contempt petition while seeking to urge that DVI
C           will be within in its rights to urge whether the conditions precedent
            to the enforcement of the resolution plan have been fulfilled. Since
            DVI is in appeal before the NCLAT, we express no opinion on
            the merits of the submission. The NCLAT will take a view on the
            tenability and merits of the submission of DVI that the conditions
            precedent under the resolution plan have not been fulfilled after
D
            hearing the parties. This is not an issue which arises before the
            Court in the present proceedings either upon the application for
            rectification moved by DVI or the contempt petition moved by
            the CoC.”
              5.4 While dismissing the application for rectification and disposing
E     of the contempt proceedings, this Court ultimately concluded and directed
      as under:
            “39 For the above reasons, our conclusions and directions are
            that:

F           (i)      There is no merit in the application for rectification moved
                     by DVI. IA No. 58156 of 2020 in Civil Appeal No 6707 of
                     2020 shall stand dismissed;
            (ii)     It is not expedient in the interest of justice to pursue the
                     contempt proceedings. The Contempt Petition (C) No. 524
G                    of 2020 in Civil Appeal No. 6707 of 2019 shall accordingly
                     stand dismissed, subject to (iii) below;
            (iii)    In terms of the submission which has been made by DVI
                     before this Court and even otherwise, as a consequence of
                     the dismissal of its IA on 18 June 2020, it 30 shall not set-up
                     a plea for force majeure in the proceedings which are
H
 COMMITTEE OF CREDITORS OF AMTEK AUTO LTD. THROUGH CORP.                     747
   BANK v. DINKAR T. VENKATSUBRAMANIAN [M. R. SHAH, J.]


             pending before the NCLAT in appeal against the order of         A
             the NCLT approving the resolution plan; and
      (iv)   The appeal filed by DVI against the approval of the
             resolution plan by the NCLT shall peremptorily be heard
             and disposed of by the NCLAT not later than within a period
             of one month from the date of the present judgment.”            B
       This Court also directed that the appeal filed by the DVI against
the approval of the resolution plan shall peremptorily be heard and
disposed of by the appellate authority within a period of one month from
the date of the said judgment.
       5.5 That thereafter, by a detailed judgment and order dated           C
16.04.2021, the appellate authority dismissed the appeal preferred by
the DVI which was filed against the order passed by the adjudicating
authority dated 9.7.2020 approving the resolution plan submitted by the
DVI itself. Thus thereafter, the Resolution Plan submitted by the
successful resolution applicant – DVI was to be implemented and acted        D
upon by the DVI. However subsequently when the present appeal was
taken up for further hearing, it was pointed out that the DVI – successful
resolution applicant is not acting as per the approved resolution plan.
However, it was pointed out that the implementation of the successful
resolution plan has been commenced. Therefore, this Court directed the
parties to submit the status report on implementation of the approved        E
resolution plan submitted by DVI.
       6. Status Report filed by DVI – successful resolution applicant
was produced before this Court on 23.11.2021, when this Court passed
the following order:
                                                                             F
      “We have heard Shri Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General
      appearing on behalf of the Appellant, Ms. Shikha Tandon, learned
      counsel appearing on behalf of the DVI/successful resolution
      applicant and Shri Sanjay Bhatt, learned counsel appearing on
      behalf of the Resolution Professional.
                                                                             G
      It is not in dispute that the Resolution Plan submitted by the DVI
      has been approved by the NCLAT as far as back in July, 2020.
      Earlier, the attempts were made to resile from the Resolution plan
      which has not been accepted by this Court by detailed orders.
      Thereafter, the matter has been adjourned time and again so as to
                                                                             H
748      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2021] 9 S.C.R.


A     enable the DVI to act as per the Resolution Plan. Today, a status
      report has been filed on behalf of the respondent no.3 – DVI.
      In paragraph 2, it is stated as under –
         “At the outset, it is submitted that DVI has been committed
         towards implementation of DVI’s Resolution Plan and has been
B        taking active steps towards its implementation. In furtherance
         of the same, DVI and/ or its affiliate (“DVI Affiliate”) has
         already remitted amounts aggregating to INR 500 Crore, i.e.,
         the upfront infusion amount (“Upfront Cash Amounts”) under
         DVI’s Resolution Plan to the Indian branch of Standard
C        Chartered Bank (DVI Affiliate’s custodian bank) for settlement
         of debt under DVI’s Resolution Plan. DVI is currently awaiting
         details of Amtek’s designated accounts in which such Upfront
         Cash Amounts are to be remitted on the closing date, as may
         be agreed to between the members of the IMC for
         implementation of DVI’s Resolution Plan. It is further stated
D        that DVI undertakes to disburse this money in accordance with
         the terms of DVI’s Resolution Plan, as and when such closing
         date is achieved.”
      Under the Resolution Plan, the following steps are to be
      undertaken–
E
         “a) Delisting of Amtek’s equity share capital from the stock
         exchanges – Completed.
         b) Increase of authorised share capital of Amtek and completion
         of necessary filings – Completed.
F        c) DVI and/or its affiliate to subscribe to the equity shares of
         Amtek by infusing nominal amounts of INR 5,00,000 (“Nominal
         Infusion”) - Ongoing.
         d) Debt identified as unsustainable to be converted into equity
         and equity to be issued and allotted to the creditors
G        (“Unsustainable Equity Allotment”) - Ongoing.
         e) Reduction in pre-CIRP sharesholding of Amtek and equity
         held by way of Unsustainable Equity Allotment – This action
         is pending and can be undertaken only upon Nominal Infusion
         and Unsustainable Equity Allotment.
H
 COMMITTEE OF CREDITORS OF AMTEK AUTO LTD. THROUGH CORP.                    749
   BANK v. DINKAR T. VENKATSUBRAMANIAN [M. R. SHAH, J.]


         f) Issuance and allotment of 90% of equity share capital to        A
         DVI and/or its affiliates – Ongoing.
         g) Issuance and allotment of 10% of equity share capital to
         financial creditors – Ongoing.
         h) Issuance and allotment of non-convertible debentures to
         DVI Affiliate – Ongoing DVI vide its emails dated 18.11.2021       B
         had informed the IMC members that:
         (a) Upfront Cash Amounts have currently been remitted by
         DVI Affiliate to the Indian branch of the DVI Affiliate’s
         custodian bank for settlement of debt under the Resolution
         Plan; and                                                          C

         (b) details of the designated accounts in which such amounts
         are to be deposited have not been provided to DVI.”
      One of the steps to be undertaken by the DVI is to deposit Rs.500
      crores “Upfront Cash Amounts”. As per the communication dated         D
      18.11.2021 addressed by DVI a sum of Rs.500 crores is lying in a
      deposit account in India with their custodian Standard Chartered
      Bank and the money is ready for disbursement to lenders. The
      submission on behalf of the DVI is that unless and until the other
      steps are undertaken as per the Resolution Plan, the aforesaid
      amount of Rs.500 crores may not be transferred to Amtek Auto          E
      Limited. The aforesaid is just contrary to their own communication
      dated 18.11.2021. Therefore, when even according to the DVI a
      sum of Rs.500 cores is lying in a deposit account in India with
      their custodian and even as per the said communication the money
      is ready for disbursement to lenders, we direct that the aforesaid    F
      amount of Rs.500 crores to be transferred to the Bank Account
      of Amtek Auto Limited by 24.11.2021, the particulars of the Bank
      Account are as under –
      Bank Name – State Bank of India A/c No. - 32985171467
      IFSC - SBIN0004109 Beneficiary – Amtek Auto Limited Branch
                                                                            G
      - 12th Floor, STC Building, 1, Tolstoy Marg, Jawahar Vyapar
      Bhawan, New Delhi
      Put up on 25.11.2021.”
      7. Today, when the present appeal is taken up for further hearing,
Shri Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General of India appearing on behalf   H
750             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2021] 9 S.C.R.


A     of the COC has submitted that an amount of Rs. 500 crores are
      transferred to the bank account of the Corporate Debtor – Amtek Auto
      Limited. It is to be noted that even in the status report the DVI has
      stated that DVI has been committed towards its approved resolution
      plan and has been taking active steps towards its implementation.
B             8. Under the approved resolution plan, both the parties have to
      fulfil their obligations. The Corporate Debtor has also to perform its
      obligations simultaneously so that the amount of Rs.500 crores be
      transferred to the financial creditors/lenders of the Corporate Debtor. It
      is the case on behalf of the respective parties that the aforesaid obligations
      are to be performed mutually and simultaneously. It is reported that
C     Implementation and Monitoring Committee (IMC) has been constituted
      comprising of resolution professional, three identified lenders of the
      Corporate Debtor and nominee of DVI to supervise the implementation
      of the resolution plan.
              9. The approved resolution plan has to be implemented at the
D     earliest and that is the mandate under the IBC. As per Section 12 of the
      IBC, subject to sub-section (2), the corporate insolvency resolution
      process shall be completed within a period of 180 days from the date of
      admission of the application to initiate such process, which can be
      extended by a further period of 180 days. As per proviso to Section 12
E     of the IBC, which has been inserted by Act 26 of 2019, the insolvency
      resolution process shall mandatorily be completed within a period of 330
      days from the insolvency commencement date, including any extension
      of the period of corporate insolvency resolution process granted under
      Section 12 of the IBC and the time taken in legal proceedings in relation
      to such resolution process of the Corporate Debtor. As per the third
F     proviso to Section 12 of the IBC, which is also inserted by Act 26 of
      2019, where the insolvency resolution process of a Corporate Debtor is
      pending and has not been completed within a period stated hereinabove,
      i.e., within a period of 330 days, such resolution process shall be completed
      within a period of 90 days from the date of commencement of the IBC
G     amendment Act, 2019, i.e., 16.08.2019.
              10. Thus, the entire resolution process has to be completed within
      the period stipulated under Section 12 of the IBC and any deviation
      would defeat the object and purpose of providing such time limit. However,
      by earlier order, the time limit has been condoned in view of the various
H     litigations pending between the parties and in the peculiar facts and
 COMMITTEE OF CREDITORS OF AMTEK AUTO LTD. THROUGH CORP.                        751
   BANK v. DINKAR T. VENKATSUBRAMANIAN [M. R. SHAH, J.]


circumstances of the case. Therefore, any further delay in implementation       A
of the approved resolution plan submitted by DVI which as such has
been approved by the adjudicating authority in the month of July, 2020
and even the appeal against the same has been dismissed subsequently,
any further delay would defeat the very object and purpose of providing
specific time limit for completion of the insolvency resolution process, as
                                                                                B
mandated under Section 12 of the IBC. Therefore, we direct all the
concerned parties to the approved resolution plan and/or connected with
implementation of the approved resolution plan including IMC to complete
the implementation of the approved resolution plan, within a period of
four weeks from today, without fail. It is further directed and it goes
without saying that on implementation of the approved resolution plan           C
and even as per the approved resolution plan, an amount of Rs. 500
crores now deposited by DVI-successful resolution applicant be
transferred to the respective lenders/financial creditors as per the
approved resolution plan and/or as mutually agreed. Any lapse on the
part of any of the parties in implementing the approved resolution plan
                                                                                D
with the time stipulated hereinabove shall be viewed very seriously.
      11. With the above observations and directions, the present appeal
stands disposed of. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.


Ankit Gyan                                                Appeal disposed of.   E




                                                                                F




                                                                                G




                                                                                H