Bhavik Haribhai Rupapara vs Canara Bank & Ors
- CitationComp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 2166 of 2024
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
An insolvency professional's statutory duties under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code do not cease while a Section 94 petition remains pending before the Adjudicating Authority, and he is not entitled to make his own inferences about the continuation of the proceeding (for instance, from a debtor's communication of an intention to withdraw) but must take his instructions from the Adjudicating Authority.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Bhavik Haribhai Rupapara ...Appellant(s)
Versus
Canara Bank & Ors. ...Respondent(s)
Present:
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Asav Rajan, Mr. Mayank Biyani & Mr. Kashish Chadha, Advocates for Appellant.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocate for Respondent.
ORDER
(HYBRID MODE)
31.07.2025: The IRP against whom the Adjudicating Authority has entered
certain findings and recommended necessary action by the IBBI in its order
dismissing a petition filed by a personal guarantor under Section 94 of IBC, is
now before this Tribunal challenging it.
2. The facts fall within a very narrow campus
On 12.02.2024 a certain personal guarantor instituted a petition under
Section 94 of IBC. On 29.01.2024 the Adjudicating Authority appointed
the appellant as the IRP. On 07.02.2024 order appointing him as an IRP
was received by the appellant.
According to appellant on the very date on which he received the order of
his appointment (07.02.2024), he had issued e-mails to the personal
guarantor as well as to the corporate Debtor. Even as he was waiting for
certain information, on 20.02.2024 he fell sick and was hospitalised for 2
more than a week (necessary medical certificate is enclosed in the paper
book).
On 28.02.2024, the appellant again e-mailed the personal guarantor as
well as corporate debtors.
On 06.03.2024 one of the creditors namely Canara Bank responded.
On 05.04.2024 the appellant filed its interim report. However, there were
some defects in the same. Be that as it may on 23.04.2014, personal
guarantor had e-mailed the appellant, intimating him that the former
proposed to withdraw his petition under Section 94 of IBC.
Thereafter, on 13.08.2024, the appellant refiled his report. And on
27.09.2024 the Tribunal passed the impugned order under which it
dismissed a very petition which the PG had decided to withdraw on the
ground that the PG had instituted the petition only to enjoy an
undeserving moratorium period. Indeed the Adjudicating Authority also
slapped cost on the PG.
So far as the appellant is concerned the Adjudicating Authority was of the
view that when in terms of Section 99 of IBC, the appellant as IRP was
excepted to file its report within ten days from the date of his appointment,
he taking 187 days for filing the same demonstrates that he has been
lackadaisical in his attitude. Taking exception to this attitude the tribunal
required IBBI to initiate necessary action against the appellant.
As outlined earlier it is this portion of the impugned order which concerns the
appellant is now under challenge.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant indeed
has filed his interim report on 05.04.2024, but he was sick from 20.02.2024 for 3
more than a week, and that he was keen to do what he was expected to do as
could be seen from the e-mail he had sent on 02.02.2024 and on 28.02.2024.
He also submitted that in the refiling of the report, some delay has intervened
but the appellant was slightly misled by the e-mail of the PG that he proposed to
withdraw his petition filed under Section 94 IBC. The appellant bona fide
believed that if the petition is allowed to be withdrawn then his exercise might
go wasted.
4. Impressive that the submissions of the counsel might be, but this Tribunal
underscores that the appellant is required not to make his own inferences, but
ought to take instructions from the Adjudicating Authority. As long as the
petition under Section 94 is on the file of the tribunal, the appellant's
responsibility as an IRP to do all the statutory responsibilities required of him,
does not cease. The appellant is required to be cautious in future.
5. For the present this tribunal only gives benefit of doubt to the appellant,
and accordingly allows that part of the impugned order which concerns the
appellant. It is made clear it has little to do with line of reasoning of the
Adjudicating Authority in dismissing petition under section 94.
[Justice N. Seshasayee] Member (Judicial)
[Indevar Pandey] Member (Technical) Shweta/SK
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