Mr. Deepak Raheja vs Idbi Trusteeship Services Limited & Anr
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 474 of 2024
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
At the stage of appointment of an interim resolution professional under Section 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, objections going to the merits of the admission of the application, including the contention that the security trustee lacked jurisdiction to invoke the guarantee, are not to be entertained; such issues are to be raised before the Adjudicating Authority at the stage of admission or rejection under Section 100, and by way of objection to the report of the Resolution Professional, in accordance with the position laid down by the Supreme Court in Dilip B Jiwrajka v. Union of India.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Deepak Raheja ...Appellant
Versus
IDBI Trusteeship Services Ltd. ...Respondent
Present: For Appellant: Ms. Shweta Bharti, Mr. Arjesh Kumar Shankar, Mr. Srihari, Mr. Rohit Jolly, Ms. Bheeni Goyal, Mr. Harshal Sareen, Advocates. For Respondent: Mr. Deepak Bashta, Advocate for R-2.
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
05.03.2024: This Appeal has been filed against order dated 06.02.2024
passed by the Adjudicating Authority on an application filed under Section
95 by which order the Resolution Professional has been appointed.
2. Learned counsel for the Appellant challenging the order submits that
the Security Trustee has no jurisdiction to invoke guarantee.
3. We are of the view that at the stage when Resolution Professional has
been appointed, all these issues which are sought to be raised by the
Appellant cannot be raised and can be raised when application comes for
admission or rejection under Section 100 before the Adjudicating Authority.
The above position of law has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in "Dilip B Jiwrajka vs. Union of India & Ors., Writ Petition (Civil) No.1281 of
2021" decided on 09.11.2023.
Cont'd.../ -2-
4. We thus following the aforesaid judgment are of the view that this
appeal cannot be entertained at this stage. It is open for the Appellant to
raise all issues before the Adjudicating Authority and it is also open to the
Appellant to file objection to the report of the Resolution Professional. With
these observations we dispose of this appeal.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)
[Arun Baroka] Member (Technical) Archana/nn
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.474 of 2024
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