Additionally, an appeal was preferred by the Applicant against the Admission Order before the Hon'ble NCLAT agitating the said contention which also came to be rejected by the Hon'ble NCLAT vide its order dated 12.01.2022. Thus, the Applicant's argument was not only rejected by this Hon'ble Tribunal but also by the Hon'ble NCLAT in appeal. The Applicant cannot reagitate and reiterate the same argument by way of the above captioned Application when the same has already been adjudicated upon both at the stage of the hearing of the captioned Section 7 Petition as well as the aforementioned Appeal. Further, the admission of the Petition has got nothing to do with the Respondent herein as the Respondent came into picture only after initiation of CIRP 3.6 As regards all the other allegations mounted by the Applicant, the falsity of the same is evident as the Respondent at all times followed the procedure prescribed by the Code and the Rules and Regulations thereunder. The Respondent published the EOI in Form-G and strictly adhered to all the timelines stipulated in the Code. The extension of the CIRP has taken place with the permission of this Tribunal vide its order dated 09.09.2022. Further, the extension in submission of the resolution plan was duly approved by the CoC as stated in the submissions hereinabove and only thereafter, the last date of submission of the resolution plan stood revised. The Applicant was abreast of the minutes of each of the CoC meetings since the same were provided by the Respondent to the Applicant via emails. Therefore, at all times, the Applicant was fully aware the CIRP stage and process that was going on and is now resorting to false averments only with the intention to create hindrances in the approval of the resolution plan.
