Sharad Gupta vs Tajas Jatin Parikh, Irp
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 207 of 2019
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
A financial creditor's application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 is not rendered invalid for want of authorisation merely because it is signed by an officer who holds the requisite authority to sign it, namely a senior manager empowered to sanction loans, notwithstanding that the power of attorney relied upon by the appellant was executed in 2003.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
For Appellant : Mr. Lakshay Dhamija and Mr. Karan Gandhi, Advocates
For Respondent : Ms. Niti Jain and Ms. Richa, Advocates
ORDER
01.03.2019 The application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and
Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (for short, 'the I&B Code') filed by the Central Bank of
India (Respondent) for initiation of 'corporate insolvency resolution process'
against the 'Loyal Motors Private Limited' (Corporate Debtor) having admitted,
the appellant - shareholder of 'Corporate Debtor' has challenged the impugned
order dated 28th January, 2019 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National
Company Law Tribunal), Mumbai Bench.
2. The main ground taken by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the
application under Section 7 of the I&B Code was not signed by authorised person
and the power of attorney was given in the year 2003. However, from the record
we find that the application in Form I was signed by the Senior Manager of
Central Bank of India. Such officer having empowered to grant loan is -2-
authorised to sign it. There is no ground to interfere as it cannot be held as
wrong authorisation.
We find no merit in the appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. No cost.
[Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya] Chairperson
[ Justice Bansi Lal Bhat ] Member (Judicial)
/ns/gc/
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 207 of 2019
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