Manish Dawda vs Dinesh Kumar Deora
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 30 of 2025
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where the observations in a judgment are general in nature and contain no specific adverse findings against a person, an appeal seeking expunction of those observations as directed at that person is not entertained.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE MATTER OF: Manish Dawda ...Appellant Versus Dinesh Kumar Deora ...Respondent
Present: For Appellant : Ms. Aditi Sharma, Advocate.
For Respondent :
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
30.01.2025 : This Appeal has been filed by the Authorised
Representative with the limited prayer to expunge the remarks made against
the Appellant in Paragraph 5 of the Judgment.
2. We have looked into the Paragraph 5 of the Judgment which Paragraph
reads as follows:
"5. Having heard both the Counsel, we find that since the AR is also an Insolvency Professional (RP), he is legally bound to act in an independent and impartial manner with utmost transparency during the conduct of every process under the IBC. The Code of Conduct under Regulation 7(2)(h) read with the First Schedule to the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Professionals) Regulations, 2016, is equally applicable to the ARs. Further, the RP is required to have complete control over the conduct of the processes under IBC. No RP can blame the AR or any other professional for not conducting the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) in accordance with law. An IP is legally bound to maintain integrity by being honest, straightforward in all professional relationships and should refrain from being involved in any action that would bring disrepute to the profession. He is further required to act with objectivity in his professional dealings by ensuring that his decisions are made without presence of any bias, coercion, or undue influence of any party in connection with CIRP. We expect utmost integrity, impartiality and independent conduct of CIRP from both the RP and the AR."
3. When we look into the aforesaid observation it is clear that observations
are general in nature and there are no specific adverse observations against
the AR i.e., the Appellant.
4. In view of the observation being general in nature as noticed above we
see no reason to entertain the Appeal.
With the above observation we dispose of the Appeal.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)
[Arun Baroka] Member (Technical) himanshu/nn
Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 30 of 2025 & I.A. No. 100 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