Bank Of Baroda vs Vinod Kumar Gupta And Anr
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 876 of 2022
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Adjudicating Authority cannot treat an application for replacement of a Resolution Professional as infructuous merely because the Resolution Professional has submitted a report, where further steps remain to be taken by the Resolution Professional in the proceedings under Section 95; the application must be considered on its merits.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 876 of 2022 IN THE MATTER OF: Bank of Baroda ....Appellant
Vs.
Vinod Kumar Gupta & Anr. ....Respondents
Present:
For Appellant: Mr. Avishek Guha, Mr. Soumya Dutta and Mr. Siddhant Upmanyu, Advocates For Respondents: Mr. Vishal Hirawat, Advocate for R-2.
ORDER
19.09.2022: Heard Learned Counsel for the Appellant. This appeal has
been filed against the order dated 10.06.2022 by which order the Adjudicating
Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata) has rejected the
application I.A. (IB) No. 313/KB/2022 filed by the Appellant for replacement of
the Resolution Professional.
2. Adjudicating Authority has observed that in view of the fact that report
has been submitted by the Resolution Professional, appointed in the matter,
the application has become infructuous.
3. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that view taken by the
Adjudicating Authority is erroneous since the submission of the report is not
the only act to be done by the Resolution Professional and in the proceedings
under Section 95 several further steps are to be taken by the Resolution
Professional.
Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 876 of 2022 2
4. We find substance in the submission of the counsel for appellant.
5. Learned Counsel appearing for the Resolution Professional submits that
he has no objection if the application for replacement is considered by the
Adjudicating Authority a fresh. He further submits that he is also entitled for
his payment or fee etc.
6. In view of the above, we set aside the order impugned dated 10.06.2022,
revive the I.A. (IB) No. 313/KB/2022 before the Adjudicating Authority for fresh
consideration. It is always open for the Resolution Professional to make an
appropriate application for fee and expenses before the Adjudicating Authority.
7. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Justice M. Satyanarayana Murthy] Member (Judicial)
[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)
sa/nn
Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 876 of 2022
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