Mahesh Kumar Agarwal vs State Bank Of India And Anr
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 518 of 2022
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The stage for admitting or rejecting an application under Section 95(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 does not arise until the Adjudicating Authority has received the report of the Resolution Professional appointed under Section 95(1), exercising the powers under Section 99; an order appointing a Resolution Professional and directing a report at that stage is not itself an admission or rejection and is not appealable as such. Objections that the application is barred by limitation, or that the Adjudicating Authority lacks competence to entertain it by virtue of Section 60 of the Code, are not to be decided at the stage of appointing a Resolution Professional; they are reserved to be raised before the Adjudicating Authority at the stage of admission or rejection under Section 100 of the Code.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Nirmal Kumar Agarwal ...Appellant
Versus
State Bank of India & Anr. ...Respondents
With
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 521 of 2022
IN THE MATTER OF:
Mahesh Kumar Agarwal ...Appellant
Versus
State Bank of India & Anr. ...Respondents
Present: For Appellant: Mr. Anup Kumar, Ms. Neha Jaiswal, Mr. Shivam Kumar and Ms. Shruti Singh, Advocates.
For Respondents:
ORDER
(Virtual Mode)
12.05.2022: Heard learned counsel for the Appellant. These Appeals
have been filed against similar orders both dated 25.03.2022, by which order
the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Kolkata Bench,
Kolkata on application under Section 95(1) has appointed a Resolution
Professional and directed him to submit report exercising all powers
enumerated under Section 99.
2. The Counsel for the Appellants submit that application filed under
Section 95(1) was barred by time and further the Adjudicating Authority is not 2
competent to entertain the application by virtue of Section 60 of the Code. He
submits that in view of the aforesaid the Application was not competent.
3. We are of the view that the stage for admission/rejection of the
application has not yet arrived and the Adjudicating Authority is empowered
to admit or reject the application after receiving the report from the Resolution
Professional. It is open to the Appellants to raise their all objections regarding
application being barred by time and that the Adjudicating Authority being
not competent to entertain the application before the Adjudicating Authority
at the time of admission/ rejection of application under Section 100 of the
Code. Both the Appeals are disposed of with these observations.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Shreesha Merla] Member (Technical) Archana/nn
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 518 of 2022 and 521 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