605

Duty under Section 99 of IBC is not a mere formality/procedural but a legal obligation to verify the due compliances – Central Bank of India Vs. Mr. P.K. Iyer and Anr. – NCLT Hyderabad Bench

/ 2 minutes of reading

A bare perusal of Section 99(1) of IBC discloses that the ‘duty’ to ‘examine’ the petition filed under Section 95 of IBC, within 10 days of his appointment by the resolution professional and to submit a report to the Adjudicating Authority recommending for approval or rejection of the Petition, imposed on the Resolution Professional by the legislature is to avoid frivolous petitions.
The said ‘duty’ is not a ‘mere’ formality/procedural but a legal obligation to verify the due compliances/ requirements by the creditor which are mandated in terms of sections 95 to 97 of IBC, more particularly the compliance of Section 95(4)(b) & (c) of IBC.
Thus, the recommendation of the resolution professional for admission or rejection of the creditor’s petition for triggering insolvency resolution process against the personal guarantor must invariably precede the compliance of due verification of the petition filed by the creditor, by the Resolution Professional.

Duty under Section 99 of IBC is not a mere formality/procedural but a legal obligation to verify the due compliances – Central Bank of India Vs. Mr. P.K. Iyer and Anr. – NCLT Hyderabad Bench Read Post »

Period of delay in filing appeal u/s 61 of IBC, from date of restoration application to disposed of as withdrawn of CIRP initiation application cannot be excluded by giving the benefit of Section 14 of Limitation Act – Harish Kumar Vs. Solitaire Infomedia Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. – NCLAT New Delhi

/ 9 minutes of reading

NCLAT held that the present is a case where we cannot hold that the application filed for restoration was in a wrong forum which could not be decided for the defect of jurisdiction or of like nature. Conditions as contemplated u/s 14 are not attracted to extend the benefit u/s 14 to the Appellant. The judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sesh Nath Singh & Anr. Vs. Baidyabati Sheoraphuli Co-operative Bank Ltd. & Anr. (2021) ibclaw.in 49 SC was a case where the benefit was extended u/s 14 of the Limitation Act with regard to period during which writ petition was pending challenging the proceedings under SARFAESI Act. The facts of the case Sesh Nath Singh & Anr. are entirely different and are not attracted in the present case. Our jurisdiction to condone the delay is limited to only 15 days. Hence, we are unable to accept the prayer to condone the delay of 38 days beyond the expiry of limitation. The application for condonation of delay is rejected. Memo of appeal is rejected.

Period of delay in filing appeal u/s 61 of IBC, from date of restoration application to disposed of as withdrawn of CIRP initiation application cannot be excluded by giving the benefit of Section 14 of Limitation Act – Harish Kumar Vs. Solitaire Infomedia Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Scroll to Top