Mr. K. M. Sebastine vs State Bank Of India

K.M. Sebastine ...Appellant

Versus

State Bank of India ...Respondent

Present: For Appellant: Ms. Ridhi Bansal and Ms. Sidhi Bansal, Advocates. For Respondent:

ORDER

13.01.2023: Heard learned counsel for the Appellant. This Appeal has

been filed against the order dated 09.12.2022 by which order the Adjudicating

Authority has appointed the Resolution Professional and asked for report to

be submitted under Section 99. Learned counsel for the Appellant contends

that orders have been passed in violation of principles of natural justice

without giving opportunity to the Appellant to raise objection on limitation and

jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Authority. It is submitted that the Resolution

Professional has asked for financial documents from the Appellant.

2. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the

Appellant and perused the record.

3. The Adjudicating Authority in the order has already noticed that limited

notice to Respondent has already been served and learned counsel for the

Respondent has also appeared on the date.

Cont'd.../ 2

4. By order dated 09.12.2022 Resolution Professional has been appointed

who will submit the report. The Appellant shall have right to file its objection

to the report of the Resolution Professional and it is always open for the

Appellant to raise all objections regarding limitation and jurisdiction, etc.,

which need to be considered by the Adjudicating Authority at the time of

admission/rejection under Section 100 of the Code. We are of the view that

at this stage Appeal need not be entertained. With liberty as above, Appeal is

dismissed.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) Archana/nn

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 29 of 2023