Anand Pratap Singh And Anr vs Arvind Mittal
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 832 of 2025
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Once a application under Section 7 or Section 9 of the IBC is admitted and an Interim Resolution Professional is appointed, the management and affairs of the corporate debtor vest in the IRP under Section 17(1), and the powers of the board of directors of the corporate debtor stand suspended; a suspended director therefore has no competence to withdraw money from the corporate debtor's bank account after the IRP's appointment and the imposition of moratorium.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Anand Pratap Singh & Anr. ...Appellant Versus Arvind Mittal, ...Respondents RP of APS Infra Engineers Pvt Ltd.
Present: For Appellant : Mr. Shubham Paliwal and Ms. Komal Bihani, Advocates.
For Respondents : CS Gaurav Joshi, Advocate for RP.
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
02.06.2025 : This appeal is directed against the order passed in IA No.
5495 of 2024 by which the Tribunal has directed the present appellant to
deposit in the account of the corporate debtor an amount of Rs.514,864/-
which was withdrawn after the CIRP.
2. Counsel for the appellant has submitted that though the order of
admission is dated 09.08.2024 but the IRP had informed him on 29.08.2024.
It is submitted that the amount has been transferred to the account of the
employees towards their salary.
3. We have heard the counsel for appellant and after examining the
records, are of the considered opinion that once the application under Section
7 or Section 9 is admitted and IRP is appointed as such, the management and
affairs of the corporate debtor vests with the IRP in terms of Section 17(1) of
the IBC and the power of the board of directors of the corporate debtor is
suspended. In such situation, the suspended director of the corporate debtor has no competence to draw money from with the account of corporate debtor
at all after the IRP is appointed and Moratorium is imposed.
Appeal is dismissed. No costs.
[Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain] Member (Judicial)
[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) harleen/RR
Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 832 of 2025 & I.A. No. 3237 of 2025 2 of 2
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free