Manoj Kulshrestha vs Amarjeet Singh Kalra & Ors
- CitationCompany Appeal(AT) (Insolvency) No. 607 of 2022
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Adjudicating Authority may not record adverse findings against a Resolution Professional, or refer him to the regulator for action, on the basis of observations that are not supported by the record, where the record shows that the RP acted in discharge of his duties in attempting to trace the company's absconding directors and in pursuing the matter through the appropriate agencies, and the delay is attributable to the untraceability of those directors rather than to any default of the RP.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI Company Appeal(AT) (Insolvency) No. 607 of 2022 IN THE MATTER OF: Manoj Kulshrestha ...Appellant
Versus
Amarjeet Singh Kalra & Ors. ...Respondents
Present: For Appellant : Mr. Saurabh Jain and Mr. Abhindra Maheshwari, Advocates. For Respondents : None.
ORDER
(Through Virtual Mode)
18.07.2022 Heard learned Counsel for the Appellant. This Appeal has
been filed by the Appellant against an order dated 18.04.2022 passed by the
Adjudicating Authority in I.A. No. 6045 of 2021. The Application I.A. No. 6045
was filed by erstwhile IRP. Observations have been made by the Adjudicating
Authority against the present Resolution Professional (in short 'RP') that RP
has not taken any steps. Further, the Adjudicating Authority has observed that
RP has failed to discharge his duties and matter be referred to IBBI for taking
appropriate action.
2. Learned Counsel for the Appellant further submits that the Directors were
not traceable. In pursuance of our order passed in this Appeal dated
31.05.2022, Additional Affidavit has been filed by the Appellant. In the
Additional Affidavit, details of facts and events have been indicated where with
regard to absconding Directors, investigation has been undertaken by the
Director of Serious Fraud Investigation Officer (in short SFIO) as well as CBI.
Company Appeal(AT)(Ins) No. 607 of 2022 Page 1 of 2 Proceeding under Section 91 of Cr.PC has also been initiated against the
promotors and Directors. The Additional Affidavit clearly indicates that Central
Agencies have taken steps to trace out the Directors, but, they are untraceable.
3. We are of the view that observations made by the Adjudicating Authority
in the impugned order against RP that he has failed to discharge his duties,
are not sustainable and in result we delete the adverse observations made
against the RP as well as referring the matter to IBBI made in impugned order
dated 18.04.2022. The following observations stand deleted:
"It appears that the present RP has failed to not only to
pursue the Application but also in complying with the
directions of this Bench and thereby, in discharging his
duties property in this regard. Let the matter be referred
to the IBBI for taking appropriate action."
4. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.
It shall be open for the Adjudicating Authority to proceed further in
accordance with law.
(Justice Ashok Bhushan) Chairperson
(Justice M. Satyanarayana Murthy) Member(Judicial)
(Barun Mitra) Member(Technical) Akc/NN
Company Appeal(AT)(Ins) No. 607 of 2022 Page 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