Sanjay Pandurang Kalate vs Indian Bank
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 2369 of 2024
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a personal guarantor challenges the appointment of a Resolution Professional under Part III of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, the adjudicatory issues the guarantor raises, including any claim that he has settled the debt under a one-time settlement, are to be examined by the Adjudicating Authority at the hearing of the application under Section 100, and not in an appeal against the order appointing the Resolution Professional.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE MATTER OF: Sanjay Pandurang Kalate ...Appellant Versus Indian Bank ...Respondent
Present: For Appellant : Mr. Kushal Bansal, Mr. Kiran Shinde and Mr. Anish Ahlawat, Advocates.
For Respondent : Mr. Anant Gautam, Mr. Dinesh Sharma and Mr. Deepanjal Choudhay, Advocates.
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
23.12.2024 : This Appeal has been filed against the Order dated
14.11.2024 by the Appellant, Persona Guarantor challenging the Order of the
Adjudicating Authority by which Adjudicating Authority has appointed the
Resolution Professional (RP) in personal insolvency of the Appellant.
2. The law is well settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of
`Dilip B Jiwrajka' Vs. `Union of India & Ors.', in Writ Petition (Civil) No.
1281/2021, that all adjudicatory issues have to be examined at the time of
hearing of Section 100 by the Adjudicating Authority.
3. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the Appellant has
already entered into OTS and he wants to make the payment.
4. It is always open for the Appellant to satisfy the RP that he has made
the payment.
5. We however at this stage are unable to entertain the Appeal leaving, all
questions to be decided at time of Section 100 Application.
With these observations, we dismiss the Appeal.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) himanshu/nn
Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 2369 of 2024 & I.A. No. 8893 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