# In the matter of Ramasamy  Palaniappan Vs. Radhakrishnan Dharmarajan and Ors. CA (AT) (Ins) No. 19-20 of 2021

> NCLAT judgment dated 2021-05-05. Citation: TCN-2021-NCLAT-00268. The case involves two appeals emanating from a common order dated 23 December 2020 passed by…

- **Court:** NCLAT
- **Order date:** 5 May 2021
- **Citation:** TCN-2021-NCLAT-00268
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/ramasamy-palaniappan-vs-radhakrishnan-dharmarajan-and-ors-ca-a27f8669

## Summary

### Background

The case involves two appeals emanating from a common order dated 23 December 2020 passed by the Adjudicating Authority/National Company Law Tribunal, Division Bench, Chennai, regarding IA No. 1001 of 2020 in IBA/1459/2019. The Adjudicating Authority allowed an application filed under Section 12(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, by the Resolution Professional (RP) to exclude the period from 5 May 2020 to 31 October 2020 from the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) to provide benefit under Regulation 40 C due to the Covid-19 pandemic and associated lockdown.

## Facts

The Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) was initiated against M/S Appu Hotels Limited on 5 May 2020, and Mr. Mukesh Kumar Gupta was appointed as Interim Resolution Professional (IRP). The IRP made a public announcement on 8 May 2020, with a last date for submission of claims on 21 May 2020. The suspended director of the Corporate Debtor filed a petition before Madras High Court challenging the NCLT order dated 5 May 2020. The High Court stayed the constitution of the Committee of Creditors (CoC) until 10 June 2020. The CoC resolved to appoint Respondent No. 1 as Resolution Professional on 4 September 2020. The Adjudicating Authority appointed the Resolution Professional on 2 November 2020. The CoC deliberated on excluding the period from 5 May 2020 to 31

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the Adjudicating Authority was justified in excluding the period from 5 May 2020 to 31 …

**Ratio:** Regulation 40 C of the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons)

…

**Reasoning:** The Adjudicating Authority considered the Covid-19 pandemic situation and the attendant

…

**Interpretation:** Regulation 40 C is interpreted as an enabling provision that allows the

…

**Application:** The NCLAT applied the ratio to the facts, noting that the IRP/RP conducted the

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** Venugop…; V. P. S…
- **Appellants:** Ramasamy Palaniapp…
- **Respondents:** M/s Appu Hotels…; Radhakrishnan…

## Timeline

- **2020-05-05 — CIRP Init…**: Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process…
- **2020-05-05 — NCLT Ord…**: Order of the Adjudicating…

---

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/ramasamy-palaniappan-vs-radhakrishnan-dharmarajan-and-ors-ca-a27f8669