LANCOAlways Inspiring

July 17, 2018

M/s. National Stock Exchange of India Limited M/s. BSE LimitedI Regd. Office: "Exchange Plaza" I Regd. Office: Floor 25, P J Towers1

Bandra-Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) I Dalal Street

MUMBAI-400051 I MUMBAI-400001

.J

Dear Sir/

Sub:- Intimation under Regulation 30 of SEBI (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements)Regulations/ 2015-Reg.

In continuation to the Letter of intimation to Stock Exchanges dated May 03, 2018, it is herebyinformed that the Hon'ble National Company Law Tribunal ("NCLTL Hyderabad Bench has passed anOrder on July 13, 2018 allowing Resolution Professional ("RP") / Committee of Creditors (/'CoC//)further 16 days with immediate effect i.e. from July 13, 2018 to complete the Corporate InsolvencyResolution Process ("CIRP") and further directed the RP to place the revised Resolution Plan filed byThriven; Earthmovers Private Limited ("TEPL") before CoC and directed to take appropriate decisionon the revised plan within the period allowed. The RP to continue to discharge his functions as usualduring the period.

The copy of the NCLT Order Is enclosed for your reference.

This is for your information and record.

Thanking you;

Yours faithfully/For LANCO INFRATECH LIMITED/^SA^f^<0

s-<^.M<^-Vp (jf .5.

LJ:"/r~

^ (^S.SRINIVASARAO*COMPANY SECRETARY &

COMPLIANCE OFFICER

End: As above

Lanco Infratech LimitedCorporate Office: Lanco House, Plot # 397. Udyog Vihar, Phase-3, Gurgaon-122 016, New Delhi Region, India.

T:+91 124474 1000 F;+91 1244741860 E: info@lancogroup.comRegistered Office: Lanco House, Plot No. 4, Software Units Layout, HITEC City, Madhapur, Hyderabad-500 081,Telangana, India.

T:+91 4040090400 F:+91 402311 6127 E: info@lancogroup.comwww.lancogroup.com

Corporate Identity Number: L45200TG^993PLC015545

IN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNALHYDERABAD BENCH» HYDERABAD

ZANos. 138 of 2018CP(IB) No. 111/7/HDB/2017

U/s 60(5) (c)ofIBC,2016

In the matter of

IDBI Bank Limited Vs M/s Lanco Infratech Lhmted

Shri Savan GodiadwalaResolution Professional forM/s Lanco Infratech Limited ....Applicant /

Resolution Professional

Date of order: 13.07.2018

Coram:

Hon^ble Shri Ratakonda Murali, Member (Judicial)

Parties / Counsels present

For the Applicant: Shri Vaijayanth Palimal, Ms. RubainaS. Khatoon, Shri L. Aravind Reddy,Advocates

Per: Hon*ble Shri Ratakoada MuraU, Member (Judicial)

Heard on: 13.06.2018, 19.06.2018and06.07.2018.

ORDER

1. The Resolution Professional has filed this Applicationseeking directions to the CoC to consider the revisedResolution Plan of TEPL and further direction to theResolution Professional to continue to act as ResolutionProfessional of the Corporate Debtor, pending disposal of

lANas. 138 of 2018CP{{B)No. 111/7/HDB/2017

2

this Application and also the Moratorium Order tocontinue till disposal of this Application and other reliefs.

2. In this case, the Petition was admitted on 07.08.2017 and

IRP was appointed, who was subsequently confirmed asResolution Professional by the CoC. The period of

insolvency from ISO days to 270 days was also extendedby this Adjudicating Authority which came- to an end on

.f

04.05.2018.

3. The case of Applicant / Resolution Professional that he hascalled for Expression of Interest and that as many as seven

persons submitted EOI and that the Resolution Plans wereexamined, but the Resolution Plans did not confirm to thestandards prescribed. Therefore, the Applicant/

Resolution Professional stated that he has given an

opportunity to each of the Applicants to remove thedeficiencies and submit the plans in comphance with the

provisions of the Code and CJR Regulations.4. It is the case of Resolution Professional / Applicant herein

that Thriven! Earthmovers Private Limited (briefly called

TBPL} submitted Resolution Plan as revised on17.04.2018. Applicant / RP further stated that ResolutionPlan submitted by TEPL was alone found in conformitywith the mandatory requirements of the Code and CIR

Regulations,5. It is the case of Resolution Applicant, that he had

communicated submission of revised Resolution Plan tothe CoC in the meeting held on 23.04.2018. In the saidmeeting. Applicant/RP was directed to inform suggestionsmade in the CoC meeting to the Resolution Applicant. It isalso the case of Applicant that TEPL again submitted otheraddendum to TEPL Resolution Plan dated 24.04.2018.

Again COC meeting was held on 25.04.2018 wherein legal

^c^

IA Nas. 138 of 2018CP (IB) JVo. 11 I/ 7/HDB/2017

3

advisor to CoC is said to have suggested further changes

to TEPL Revised Resolution Plan. Again TEPL addendum

(3) was submitted on 26,04,2018. However, the revisedplan (Plan vdth addendum-3) was put for voting and only15,12 % of the Financial Creditors accepted the plan.

6. It is the case of Applicant / Resolution Professional thatTEPL again submitted Resolution Plan with certainmodifications on 01.05.2018 and made request to place

before CoC. The Resoluf-ion Professional again stated that

he placed fh.e revised resolution plan of TEPL before theCoC in its 18th meeting held on 02.05.2018. It is the caseof Resolution Professional that CoC expressed difficulty to

study the Resolution Plan as CIRP is going to come to anendon04.05.2018.

7. It is also the case of Resolution Professional that he again

received some more clarifications from. TEPL. In these

cu-cumstances, he stated that he may be permitted tocontinue to act as RP till disposal of this Application and

also to pass order to continue the moratorium order etcand also requested the Tribunal to direct the CoC toconsider the revised Resolution Plan.

8. What is clear from the averments in the Application that

revised plan submitted by TEPL was finally placed beforeCoC on 2.5.2018 and CoC expressed its inability to studythe resolution plan as CIRP process is going to end by04.05.2018. Resolution Plan submitted byTEPL is the only

plan which is in conformity with the Code and CIRRegulations. Therefore, there is a need to again considerthe revised Resolution Plan submitted by TEPL by the CoC.

9. The Applicant/ResoIution Professional is also requestingthe Tribunal to give directions to the CoC to consider therevised Resolution Plan filed byTEPL. It is open to the CoC

^

WWos. 138 of 2018CPIB)Nv Ill///HDB/2017

4

either to accept or reject the same but opport-inity be given

to the Resolution Applicant for consideration of this

Resolution Plan (revised) by the CoC. Only reason as to

why revised Resolution Plan of TEPL was not consideredby the COC is due to lack of sufficient time. ThisApplication was filed on 03.05.2018. Apart from thisApplication, there are several other Applications filed bydifferent parties which are pending for disposal

10. Actually, TEPL submitted the revised plan on first occasionafter furnishing addendum on 17.04.2018. This was firstplaced before CoC on 23.04.2018. This is the only planwhich is in conformity with Code and CiR Regulations.This Plan was being submitted from time to time from23.04.2018 to 02.05.2018. Finally CoC expressed

difficulty for considering the final revised Resolution Planfiled by TEPL only on the ground of lack of sufficient time.Therefore, this is a fit case to exclude the period duringwhich the Resolution Plan was being submitted by TEPL

from time to time after revision to the Resolution

Professional who was placing the same before the CoC.This period started from 17.04.2018 to 02.05.2018. Sincedirection is being given to the Resolution Professional toplace the revised plan submitted by TEPL for considerationof CoC again, it requires some more time for studying therevised plan. Further, the CoC was unable to take adecision on the revised plan due to lack of time. Had there'been time, the CoC could have taken decision on therevised plan either way. Further, there are so many stakeholders involved and that there are several employees

working in the Corporate Debtor Company and in theinterest of stakeholders and other employees involved, therevised resolution plan submitted by TEPL needs to be

^

m«

IA Nos 138 of 2018CP(IB} !fo. 111/7/HDB/20T7

5

considered by the CoC in the light of further information

furnished by TEPL/Resolution Applicant, Therefore, the

period during which the Resolution Plan submitted by

Resolution Applicant/TEPL was being placed before CoCfrom time to time i.e 17.04.2018 to 02.05.2018 which

comes to 16 days to be excluded from the computation

period of CIRP as CoC was unable to take final decisiondue to insufficient time.

11. Hont)le NCLAT had obseryed in the decision of Quinn

Logistics India Pvt Ltd Vs. Macksoft in CA (AT) (Insolvency)No. 185 of 2018 that Adjudicating Authority can excludecertain period for the purpose of counting total period off

270 days, if the facts and circumstances justify exclusionin unforeseen circumstances. Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal

shown some circumstances wherein the period involved

can be excluded from the computation the period of total

270 days viz.

(i) If the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process isstayed by (a Court of law or the Adjudicating Authorityor the Appellate Tribunal or the HonUe SupremeCourt.

(ji) If no 'Resolution Professional' is functioning for one orother reason during the Corporate InsolvencyResolution Process, such as removal.

(iii) The period between the date of order ofadmission/moratorium is passed and the actual dateon which the 'Resolution Professional takes charge for

completing the CIRP.

(iv) On hearing a case, if order is reserved by theAdjudicating Authority or the Appellate Tribunal orthe Hon'ble Supreme Court and finally pass order

lANos 138 of 2013CP(JB} I11/7/HDB/2017

6

enabling the 'Resolution Professional' to complete theCIRP.

(v) If the CIRP is set aside by the Appellate Tribunal ororder of the Appellate Tribunal is reversed by the m-

Hon'ble Supreme Court and CIRP is restored.(vi) Any other circumstances which justifies exclusion of

certain period.

12. It is clear as per ground No.6, the Adjudicating Authoritycan exclude certain period for the purpose of counting totalperiod of CIRP if circumstances justify yuch exclusion.

13. Here is the case where only one Resolution Plan was foundto be in conformity with the provisions of the Code andCIRP Regulations. This Resolution plan was submitted byTEPL. This Resolution plan was being submitted by

supplying the deficiencies or other information from timeto time. Though it was once rejected, yet, ResolutionApplicant / TEPL again re-submitted the plan to theResolution Professional for placing before the CoC forconsideration. However, CoC could not take a decision

either way on the revised Resolution Plan due to lack ofsufficient time. Therefore, it is a fit case to exclude the

period during which the Resolution Plan was beingsubmitted from time to time. This justifies the ground for

exclusion of the time. The Applicant/ Resolution

Professional is also seeking direction for extension ofmoratorium period and further seeking direction to theCoC to consider the revised Plan.

14. In these circumstances, the period involved in presenting

the revised plan from time to time is to be excluded sincefinal decision was not taken due to lack of sufficient time.

15. In the result. Application is allowed by excluding 16 daysfor the purpose of counting period of CIKP and thereby

lANoa. 138 of 2018CPiSB)^ 11I/7/HDB/2017

7

allowing RP/CoC a further 16 days with immediate effect

from today to complete the CIRP and further direct the

Resolution Professional to place the revised Resolution

Plan filed by TEPL before the CoC and It is directed to take

appropriate decision on the revised plan within the period

allowed. The Resolution Professional to discharge his

functions as usual during this period,

PATAKONDA MURALI \tf'J- ] <^MEMBER (JUDICIAL)