Pravin Kumar Malhotra vs State Bank Of India Through Resolution ...
- CitationComp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1633 of 2024
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Non-compliance with the provisions governing the personal insolvency process, such as Section 99, is to be raised and decided in the proceedings under Section 100; an earlier order admitting the application under Section 100 that has not been challenged stands, and an application seeking to recall prior orders on the ground of such non-compliance is therefore not maintainable and was rightly dismissed.
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 Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1633 of 2024 & I.A. No. 5902 of 2024 IN THE MATTER OF: Pravin Kumar Malhotra ...Appellants Versus State Bank of India ...Respondents
Present: For Appellant : Mr. Jai Anant Dehadrai and Mr. Siddharth Sharma, Advocates. For Respondents : Mr. Irfan Ahmed, Ms. Shweta Saini, Advocates.
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
23.09.2024: Heard counsel for the appellant as well as Ld. Counsel
appearing for the bank.
This appeal has been filed against the order dated 04.04.2024 by which
order Adjudicating Authority has rejected IA- 1494 of 2024 filed by the
appellant to recall the order dated 12.04.2023, 22.08.2023 and 23.11.2023
passed in proceeding under Section 95. The Adjudicating Authority has noted
in the order that subsequently the application came to be admitted on
26.02.2024. The Ld. Counsel for appellant submits that the process as
required under Section 99 was not followed, he has referred to Section 99(10),
99(7) he submits that hence the application was filed to recall the order.
2. We have considered the submissions of counsel for appellant and
perused the records. All issues of non-compliance of any provisions are to be
raised and decided in proceeding under Section 100 and admittedly the application has already been admitted under Section 100 on 26.02.2024 which
order was not subject to challenge. We thus are of view that no error has been
committed in dismissing IA No. 1494 of 2024. Ld. Counsel for the appellant
lastly, submitted that appellant has not been able to file a Repayment Plan
since the time has run out he may be allowed sometime to submit Repayment
Plan. The appellant is allowed one month's time to file a repayment plan before
the Resolution Professional subject to above the appeal is dismissed.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Arun Baroka] Member (Technical) harleen/NN
Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1633 of 2024 & I.A. No. 5902 of 2024 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