# In the matter of Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Vs. A.P.Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Through Rajiv Khurana Resolution Professional & Ors. CA (AT) (Ins) No. 146 of 2021

> NCLAT judgment dated 2021-03-03. Citation: TCN-2021-NCLAT-00335. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. filed an appeal under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy…

- **Court:** NCLAT
- **Order date:** 3 Mar 2021
- **Citation:** TCN-2021-NCLAT-00335
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/kotak-mahindra-bank-ltd-vs-apenterprises-pvt-ltd-through-rajiv-khurana-resolutio-7a6f3c65

## Summary

### Background

Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. filed an appeal under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, against the order dated 12.01.2021 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh). The Adjudicating Authority had allowed the exclusion of the lockdown period (25.03.2020 to 31.07.2020) from the schedule of making payments under the approved Resolution Plan in I.A No. 287/2020 and 483/2020 in Company Petition (IB) No. 119/Chd/CHD/2018.

## Facts

Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. filed an appeal against an order by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench) that allowed the exclusion of the lockdown period (March 25, 2020, to July 31, 2020) from the payment schedule under an approved Resolution Plan. The Resolution Plan of the Corporate Debtor, A.P. Enterprises Private Limited, was approved by the CoC on July 19, 2019, and subsequently approved by the Adjudicating Authority on March 18, 2020. The Resolution Applicant had paid Rs. 3,00,17,650/- but failed to pay the remaining Rs. 2,00,00,000/- out of the total upfront payment of Rs. 5,00,17,650/-. Kotak Mahindra Bank, the largest secured creditor with 84.35% voting share in the CoC, argued that the Adjudicating Authority should not have

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the Adjudicating Authority was justified in excluding the lockdown period from the schedule …

**Ratio:** Regulation 39(9) of IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons)

…

**Reasoning:** The NCLAT considered the directions of the Supreme Court and its own previous orders

…

**Interpretation:** The court interpreted the relevant regulations and orders concerning the

…

**Application:** The court applied the ratio to the specific facts of the case, considering the

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** Bansi Lal…; Ashok Kumar…
- **Appellants:** Kotak Mahindra…
- **Respondents:** A.P. Enterprises…; A.P.Enterprises…

## Timeline

- **2019-07-19 — CoC Meet…**: The Resolution Plan of the Corporate Debtor…
- **2020-03-18 — AA Appro…**: The Adjudicating Authority…

## Legal provisions

- [Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 61 — Appeals and Appellate Authority](https://caseease.in/legal-provisions/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016/section-61)

---

This is a preview. The full structured summary, issues, precedents and source judgment are available on CaseEase - Legal Intelligence Simplified: https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/kotak-mahindra-bank-ltd-vs-apenterprises-pvt-ltd-through-rajiv-khurana-resolutio-7a6f3c65