# In the matter of Vrinda Sarawgi and Anr. Vs. Pooja Bahry and Anr. CA (AT) (Ins) No. 495 of 2021

> NCLAT judgment dated 2021-07-19. Citation: TCN-2021-NCLAT-00174. The case pertains to an appeal against an order related to the Corporate Insolvency…

- **Court:** NCLAT
- **Order date:** 19 Jul 2021
- **Citation:** TCN-2021-NCLAT-00174
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/vrinda-sarawgi-and-anr-vs-pooja-bahry-and-anr-ca-a1469dcc

## Summary

### Background

The case pertains to an appeal against an order related to the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) of 'Swastik Aqua Ltd.'. The Resolution Plan was approved, but difficulties arose, leading the Monitoring Committee to agree to extend the payment deadline. This extension, from April 1, 2021, to June 30, 2021, was subject to a 12% per annum interest payment to Respondent No. 2, the Sole Financial Creditor. The matter was referred to the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi Bench-V), which approved the extension on June 8, 2021. The appeal was filed because the appellants believed the extension period should be calculated from the date of the impugned order.

## Facts

The Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) was initiated for 'Swastik Aqua Ltd.'. A Resolution Plan was approved. The Monitoring Committee agreed to extend the payment deadline from April 1, 2021, to June 30, 2021, with a 12% per annum interest payment to Respondent No. 2. The Adjudicating Authority approved the extension on June 8, 2021. The Appellants filed an appeal contesting the calculation of the extension period. During the appeal, both parties stated that the necessary payments had been made, leaving only a difference in monitoring period fees and expenses. The Appellants undertook to make the remaining payment via email dated July 14, 2021. The key facts are the approved resolution plan, the extension of payment deadline, the dispute over the

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the period to be extended should be …

**Ratio:** When parties have substantially complied with the requirements and have agreed to resolve

…

**Reasoning:** The court reasoned that since the Appellants had made the necessary payments and

…

**Interpretation:** This legal issue involves the interpretation of the terms of the extension

…

**Application:** The ratio and reasoning were applied to the specific facts of the case, where

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** A.I.S. C…; Alok Sriv…
- **Appellants:** Vrinda Sa…
- **Respondents:** Swastik Aqu…; Pooja B…

## Timeline

- **2021-04-01 — Extension o…**: Monitoring Committee agreed for extension of time from 1st April, 2021 to 30th June, 2021…
- **2021-06-08 — Adjudicating Authority…**: Adjudicating Authority approved the extension of time vide impugned order dated 8th June,…

---

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/vrinda-sarawgi-and-anr-vs-pooja-bahry-and-anr-ca-a1469dcc