State Bank Of India vs Mukesh Hariram Bansal

State Bank of India ...Appellant(s)

Versus

Mukesh Hariram Bansal ...Respondent(s)

Present: For Appellant : Mr. Harshit Khare, Mr. Prafful Saini, Advocates.

For Respondents : Mr. Pankaj Bhattacharya, Ms. Raj Sarit Khare, Advocates.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

01.05.2024: Heard Learned Counsel for the Appellant as well as

Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent.

2. This Appeal is filed against the order dated 17.04.2024 passed by the

Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Ahmedabad Court-

2) in IA/514(AHM)2024 in C.P.(IB)/119(AHM)2023 by which the Adjudicating

Authority rejected the application filed by the State Bank of India for

replacement of the Resolution Professional and imposed the cost of Rs. 1 lakh.

The Adjudicating Authority on an application filed under Section 95 appointed

the Resolution Professional by order dated 11.03.2023. In the application filed

by the State Bank of India, no Resolution Professional name was nominated.

However, immediately after passing of the order, the State Bank of India filed

an application on 19.03.2023 being I.A. No. 514 (AHM) / 2024 praying for -2-

replacement of the Resolution Professional. The reasons given in the

application for replacement is that another Resolution Professional has

already been looking after other personal guarantees insolvency of the group

companies and the same Resolution Professional having recommended to be

appointed and earlier Resolution Professional to be replaced.

3. The Adjudicating Authority by the impugned order proceeded and

recorded that when the order was passed on 11.03.2023 why the State Bank

of India has not complied the order and has not handed over the documents

to the Resolution Professional to submitting the report.

4. Section 98 of the IBC provides for replacement of the Resolution

Professional on sufficient ground. The State Bank of India in the application

given the ground. Instead of adverting to said ground and considering the

application on merit, the Adjudicating Authority proceeded to pass the order

on the ground that why the documents were not given to the Resolution

Professional appointed by the Adjudicating Authority hence the cost was also

imposed. From the facts it is clear that the State Bank of India after one week

on 19.03.2023 filed the application for replacement of Resolution Professional

hence there was no occasion for State Bank of India to hand over the

documents and asked for report preparation by the Resolution -3-

Professional. When the immediate action was taken for replacement it ought

to have been considered by the Adjudicating Authority.

5. We thus are of the view that Adjudicating Authority committed error

rejecting the application and imposing the cost. The order impugned dated

17.04.2024 is set aside. We allow I.A. No. 514(AHM)/2024 and Resolution

Professional as recommended by State Bank of India be appointed who may

take further steps in accordance with law. The Appeal is disposed off.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)

R.N./N.N.