Rathin Amishbhai Majmudar vs Indian Bank (Erstwhile Allahabad Bank) ...
- CitationComp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1509 of 2024
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The imposition of costs on a Resolution Professional for an inadvertent clerical error in an affidavit, where the error is explained, the correct identity is apparent from the Report itself, and the personal guarantor has already filed a reply without any dispute as to identity, is not warranted; such costs are set aside as unnecessary where sufficient explanation has been given before the Adjudicating Authority.
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. 1509 of 2024 & I.A. No. 5479 of 2024 IN THE MATTER OF: Rathin Amishbhai Majmudar, ...Appellants Resolution Professional of Personal Guarantor Versus Indian Bank (Erstwhile Allahabad Bank) & Anr. ...Respondents
Present: For Appellant : Mr. Himanshu Satija, Ms. Neha Mehta, Mr. Harsh Saxena and Mr. Shevaaz Khan, Advocates. For Respondents : Mr. Kunal Tondon and Mr. Atishay Jain, Advocates.
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
14.08.2024: This appeal has been filed by the Resolution Professional
(RP) challenging the part of the impugned order by which cost of Rs. 50,000/-
has been imposed on the Resolution Professional.
2. Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that the RP has filed a Report
against the personal guarantor namely Shri Sumit Suresh Bhatnagar who has
also filed its Reply to the Report. However, Adjudicating Authority noticing the
mistake in the affidavit of name of personal guarantor as Shri Manoj N. Patel
has imposed the cost.
3. It is submitted that the appellant has explained that it was an
inadvertent mistake in the affidavit by mentioning the name whereas in the
Report the correct name was mentioned and further the personal guarantor
Shri Sumit Suresh Bhatnagar has already filed Reply and there was no issue regarding the identity of the personal guarantor. We find that sufficient
explanation was given by the appellant before the Adjudicating Authority and
imposition of cost was not necessary.
4. In view of the aforesaid facts, we are of the view that ends of justice be
served in deleting the cost of Rs. 50,000/- imposed on the appellant.
Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
I.A. No. 5479 of 2024
We find sufficient cause is shown in condonation of delay of 14 days.
Delay is condoned.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)
[Arun Baroka] Member (Technical)
harleen/NN
Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1509 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