Sunita Bardia vs Idbi Bank Limited & Anr

Smt. Sunita Bardia ...Appellant

Versus

IDBI Bank Ltd. & Anr. ...Respondents

Present: For Appellant: Mr. Lokesh Mishra, Mr. Mainak Bose, Ms. Urmila Chakraborty and Mr. Pranav Sharma, Advocates.

For Respondents: Mr. Ankur Mittal, Ms. Meera Murali, Mr. Aishwarya Pandey, Advocates for R-1.

ORDER

(Virtual Mode)

09.05.2022: Heard learned counsel for the Appellant as well as learned

counsel for the IDBI Bank. This Appeal has been filed against the order dated

09.03.2022 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law

Tribunal) Kolkata Bench, Kolkata by which on an application under Section

95 Sub-section (1) filed by the IDBI Bank Ltd., the Adjudicating Authority has

directed for appointment of Resolution Professional and called for report

exercising all powers enumerated under Section 99 of the Code.

2. Learned counsel for the Appellant challenging the order contends that

in the present case Appellant claims that in the Working Capital Consortium

Committee Meeting held on 16.06.2017, the Appellant was discharged from

its personal guarantee due to which application ought not to have been

proceeded any further. Learned counsel for the IDBI Bank disputed this

statement. Learned counsel for the Appellant further submitted that the claim

is barred by time.

Cont'd.../ 2

3. Present is a case where after filing an application under Section 95,

Resolution Professional has been appointed and report has been called for.

Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that report has already been

submitted by the Resolution Professional. Even if Resolution Professional has

submitted his report, it is open for the Appellant to give relevant materials to

the Resolution Professional, which could not be submitted by the Appellant

earlier, for consideration for the Resolution Professional to submit an

additional report to the Adjudicating Authority. The application having not

yet been admitted or rejected under Section 100 of the code, it is open for the

Appellant to raise all her contentions at the time of admission or rejection of

the application by the Adjudicating Authority.

4. We, thus, are of the view that ends of justice be served in disposing of

this Appeal with aforesaid observations.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Shreesha Merla] Member (Technical) Archana/nn

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 487 of 2022