Small Industries Development Bank Of ... vs Shri Kunal Patel
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Ins) No.143 of 2025
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Adjudicating Authority cannot penalise a financial creditor, in proceedings under Section 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, for a delay of the resolution professional in filing his report under Section 99; the financial creditor's petition should not be dismissed on account of the professional's default. Where the resolution professional's report is filed late, the delay may be condoned on the reasons shown, and the report is to be taken on record by the Adjudicating Authority, which must then proceed in accordance with law.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
In the matter of: Small Industries Development Bank of India ...Appellant Vs. Shri Kunal Patel ...Respondent S/o Shri Dilip Jagdish Patel With Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No.144 of 2025
In the matter of: Small Industries Development Bank of India ...Appellant Vs. Dilip Jagdish Patel ...Respondent (Personal Guarantor of Accent Packaging Pvt. Ltd.)
Present: Appellant: Ms. Bharti Nawlani, Advocate Respondent:
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode) 25.02.2026 - These twin appeals are preferred by a financial creditor who
challenges an Order dated 14.10.2024 passed by the Adjudicating Authority in
two independent proceedings initiated by the appellant against personal
guarantors in C.P.(IB)/192(AHM)2024 and C.P.(IB)/193(AHM)2024 under
Section 95, IBC.
2. Pursuant to the institution of CIRP, the Adjudicating Authority appointed
an RP and required him to file a report under Section 99. The RP filed its report
but filed it with a delay of 56 days. The RP, therefore, took out an application in
I.A. 1446 of 2024 to take on record his report and also to condone the delay of
56 days. The Adjudicating Authority however, not only refused to condone the 2
delay but proceeded to dismiss the petitions filed by the appellant under Section
95, IBC.
3. Notices were taken on the respondents, the personal guarantors, and they
chose to remain ex-parte.
4. Heard the learned Counsel and perused the impugned Orders. We are not
in agreement with the line of reasoning of the Adjudicating Authority, since for
the fault of the resolution professional, the appellant/financial creditor has been
penalized. Necessarily, we need to interfere with the impugned Orders of the
Adjudicating Authority.
5. Turning to the condonation of delay in submitting the report, we find
reasons to condone the same.
6. To conclude, this appeal is allowed and the Order of the Adjudicating
Authority dated 14.10.2024 is hereby set aside and the matters are remanded
back. The Adjudicating Authority is required to take on record the report of the
RP and to proceed in accordance with law. No cost.
[Justice N. Seshasayee] Member (Judicial)
[Arun Baroka] Member (Technical)
[Indevar Pandey] Member Technical rs/beena
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