Sh. Tej Pratap Singh Mamik Personal ... vs Canara Bank

Tej Pratap Singh Mamik ....Appellant Vs.

Canara Bank & Ors. ...Respondents

For Appellant Mr. Alok Dhir, Ms. Varsha Banerjee, Advocates. For Respondents Mr. Abhishek Naik, Ms. Gulafsha Kureshi, Ms. Deepsikha Mishra, Mr. Falak Zaidi, Ms. Tanya Raizada, Advocates for R1

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

02.04.2025: This Appeal has been filed against the order dated

27.02.2025 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law

Tribunal) Special Bench (Court-II) New Delhi by which Adjudicating Authority

in Section 95(1) application filed by Canara Bank has appointed the Resolution

Professional. Appellant aggrieved by the order has come up in this Appeal.

2. Counsel for the Appellant submits that the application under Section

95(1) was not served on the Appellant- Personal Guarantor nor there was any

Personal Guarantee on the basis of which application could have been filed.

3. Counsel for the Respondent submits that the issues which are sought

to be raised in the appeal are all adjudicatory issues which can be gone into

at the time when application come for consideration under Section 100 of the

IBC. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Dilip B Jiwrajka vs. Union of India & 2

Ors.- Writ Petition (Civil) No.1281 of 2021" has laid down that at the time

of appointment of Resolution Professional no adjudicatory issues need to be

decided and all adjudicatory issue need to be considered at the time of

consideration of application under Section 100 of the IBC.

4. In view of the aforesaid, we are of the view that at this stage, no grounds

have been made out to entertain the appeal. It is open for the Appellant to

raise all issues before the Adjudicating Authority including the above two

issues as noted above.

5. With these observations, we dismiss the Appeal.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)

[Arun Baroka] Member (Technical) Anjali/nn

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 545 of 2025