Jayesh Vinodrai Valia vs Canara Bank
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1815 of 2025
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
An adjudicating authority's direction requiring a party to disclose personal assets and the bank account statements of all family members, made in proceedings under Section 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, cannot be sustained where the order records no reasons for why such a direction is being issued. A reasoned order is required before such a direction is made; the absence of reasons renders the order unsustainable, and the appropriate course is to set it aside, leaving the party seeking such relief free to apply to the adjudicating authority for appropriate relief on which the authority may decide after hearing both parties.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE MATTER OF: Jayesh Vinodrai Valia ...Appellant
Versus
Canara Bank ...Respondent
Present: For Appellant : Mr. Krishnendu Datta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Anuj P. Agarwala, Ms. Mallika Luthra, Advocates. For Respondent : Mr. Ashok Kumar Mishra, Mr. Jonas Thomas, Advocates.
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
21.11.2025: Heard learned counsel for the Appellant and learned
counsel appearing for Canara Bank. This appeal has been filed against order
dated 31.10.2025 by which order the counsel appearing for the Appellant was
directed to disclose the personal assets on affidavit along with the statement
of bank accounts of all family members within a period of three weeks. Above
order has been passed in proceeding under Section 95 initiated by Canara
Bank in C.P.(IB)-422(MB)/2024.
2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the Appellant that application
under Section 95 is still pending and reply has also been filed by the Appellant
on two preliminary points which are pending consideration. It is submitted
that the order impugned has been passed without any notice and opportunity
to the Appellant which is a drastic order.
Cont'd.../
3. Learned counsel for the Bank submits that the Appellant has appeared
and denied receipt of notice and conduct of the Appellant was not above
board, hence, direction was issued by the Adjudicating Authority.
4. After having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view
that no reasons have been given as to why direction is being issued to disclose
the personal assets and statement of bank accounts of all family members.
We, thus, are of the view that said order is not sustainable. It is open for the
Bank to file such application before the Adjudicating Authority making such
relief which it may deem fit and the Adjudicating Authority on such
application may pass order after hearing both the parties. We are of the view
that order dated 31.10.2025 cannot be sustained. The order dated
31.10.2025 is set aside. Appeal is disposed of with liberty aforesaid.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) Archana/md
Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.1815 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