Anup Kumar vs Assets Care & Reconstruction ...

Anup Kumar ...Appellant(s)

Versus

Asset Care & Reconstruction Enterprises Ltd & Anr. ...Respondent(s)

Present: For Appellant : Mr. Parish Mishra, Ms. Aditi Indrani, Advocates For Respondents : With Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 240 of 2024

IN THE MATTER OF:

Anup Kumar ...Appellant(s)

Versus

Asset Care & Reconstruction Enterprises Ltd & Anr. ...Respondent(s)

Present: For Appellant : Mr. Parish Mishra, Ms. Aditi Indrani, Advocates For Respondents : With Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 241 of 2024

IN THE MATTER OF:

Anup Kumar ...Appellant(s)

Versus

Asset Care & Reconstruction Enterprises Ltd & Anr. ...Respondent(s)

Present: For Appellant : Mr. Parish Mishra, Ms. Aditi Indrani, Advocates For Respondents :

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode) 2

05.02.2024: Heard Learned Counsel for the Appellant as well as

Learned Counsel for the Financial Creditor.

2. These Appeals have been filed against the Order dated 18th January,

2024 passed in three applications under Section 95 by the Financial Creditor

against the personal guarantors.

3. The Appellant is Resolution Professional who was appointed in 95

proceedings. The grievance of the Appellant is that on 18th January, 2024

when the case was taken, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the RP

was unable to assist due to some technical glitch and due to said reason the

Adjudicating Authority issued a notice to the IBBI regarding the

contemptuous attitude of the RP. The observations made by the Adjudicating

Authority in the Order is as follows:

"Mr. Parish Mishra, Ld. Counsel appearing for the RP is unable to assist the Court in any manner. Let the notice be issued to IBBI regarding the contemnors and attitude of RP."

4. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has pointed out that after the

appointment of RP in Section 95 Proceeding, there was an order passed by

this Tribunal in C.A.(AT) Ins. No. 692 of 2023 and 693 of 2023 dated 30th

May, 2023 by which order the RP was directed not to submit a Report and

liberty was granted to the Personal Guarantor to file objections.

5. Further the Order indicates that certain settlement talks between the

financial creditor and personal guarantors were on. The fact that counsel

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.239-241/2024 3

appearing for the RP could not assist the Court, could not be a ground to

issue a direction to IBBI regarding attitude of the RP. We thus are of the view

that directions issued in the order as noted above on 18th January, 2024 is

required to be set aside and is hereby set aside. We make it clear that

Adjudicating Authority shall proceed with Section 95 Applicat9ion in

accordance with law. We are not expressing any opinion on the merits of the

case. The Appeals are disposed of, accordingly.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Arun Baroka] Member (Technical)

Basant/nn

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.239-241/2024