Sanjay Chandrakant Jagtap vs Ishwar Punjabi
- CitationComp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1305 of 2024
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Once a corporate insolvency resolution process has commenced and an interim resolution professional has been appointed, no permission may be granted to a former employee or key managerial person of the corporate debtor to operate its bank accounts. Any request concerning the replacement of the interim resolution professional is to be pursued by a fresh application before the Adjudicating Authority, not by an application made to the Appellate Tribunal in the appeal.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE MATTER OF: Sanjay Chandrakant Jagtap ...Appellants Versus lshwar Punjabi & Anr. ...Respondents
Present: For Appellant : Mr. Sumit Shukla and Mr. Sanjeev Panda, Advocates. For Respondents : Mr. Abhijeet Sinha Sr. Advocate with PCA Udayraj Patwardhan, Advocates for R1. Mr. Gautam Singh and Mr. Naman Chawla, Advocates for IRP a/w Mr. Rattan Chaudhary, IRP.
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
23.12.2024: Heard counsel for the appellant and respondent.
IA No. 8910 of 2024; this is an application filed by the appellant praying
for following reliefs:
"Reliefs Sought:
In view of the above, the Applicant humbly prays for the following additional reliefs:
a. To consider the exception circumstances and pass orders authorising Mr Sachin Kunjir to manage the business and banking operations of the Corporate Debtor.
b. To consider an order for the immediate removal of Mr. Rattan Chaudhry from the position of IRP for the Corporate Debtor.
c. To direct the current IRP to provide a detailed explanation for not disclosing the IBBI's order during the proceedings with the Appellant.
d. Any other order or direction that this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice and equity."
2. Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that the business of the corporate
debtor is drying up and the appellant has also obtained OTS letter from the
State Bank of India dated 30.09.2024 which need to be complied by pulling all
resources.
3. He submits that he has already informed the Investor to comply the OTS.
It is further submitted that the IRP has been suspended on 22.10.2024 and he
cannot thereafter carry on any activity in the CIRP. Pleadings are complete, we
have already fixed 21.01.2025 for hearing of the appeal.
4. In so far as permitting the employee of ex-management to operate the
bank operations, we are of the view that CIRP having been commenced and IRP
has been appointed no permission can be granted to the ex-employee/ key
managerial person to operate the bank accounts. As far as OTS is concerned it
is open for the appellant to whom the OTS letter is address to take the steps for
compliance of the OTS. With regard to IRP it is always open for the appellant to
make appropriate application before the Adjudicating Authority for replacement
or passing any further orders which may require.
Application is disposed of accordingly.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) harleen/NN
I.A. No. 8910 of 2024 in Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1305 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