Allowed

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Modinagar Paper Mills Ltd.

DRAT17 Jan 2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is an appeal under section 18 of the SARFAESI Act. The appellant bank challenged an interim order allowing amendment application by suspended directors of the corporate debtor. The Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Tribunal for fresh consideration regarding the amendment application.

What did the court decide?

The impugned interim order is set aside. The appeal is disposed of with liberty to the appellant to raise all issues before the Tribunal, which shall consider the amendment application afresh on final

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Modinagar Paper Mills Ltd. — Company and Corporate | DRAT (2023)

¶1

Appeal Dy. No. 1208/2022 Date: 17.01.2023

¶2

Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Vs. Modinagar Paper Mills Ltd. Present: Shri Sandeep Arora, counsel for the appellant,

¶3

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

¶4

The present appeal has been filed under section 18 of the SARFAESI Act against the interim order dated 19.12.2022 passed by the DRT, Lucknow in S.A. No. 423/2021, whereby the amendment application filed by the suspended directors of the respondent-company was allowed.

¶5

It is argued that the Hon’ble NCLT, Allahabad had admitted the application filed under section 7 of the IBC, 2016 and appointed the respondent no. 2- Kamlesh Kumar Taneja as IRP. It is further argued that after appointment of the IRP, the powers of respondents No. 3 and 4 stood suspended, therefore, they cannot represent the corporate debtor for all intent and purpose. It is also argued that the respondent No. 1-company had entered into a MOU agreement dated 08.01.2021 with the appellant Bank through letter of authorization dated 04.01.2021 and delivered the physical of the property in question to the Bank on 08.01.2021 and also undertaken that they will not challenge any action of the Bank in any court of law. As such the S.A. filed by the respondents was itself not maintainable, hence the amendment application also, but the Tribunal below ignoring all these facts passed the order impugned allowing the amendment application filed by the suspended directors of the respondent-company therefore, the order impugned may be set-aside.

¶6

In view of the aforesaid, the order impugned is set aside and the appeal is finally disposed off with liberty to the appellant

¶7

to raise all the issues, whatever he has, before the Tribunal below with regard to the amendment application filed by the respondents and the Tribunal below shall consider and decide the same afresh in accordance with law at the time of final disposal of the S.A. No. 423/2021, which is stated to be pending, within the time as ordered earlier.

¶8

Justice R. D. Khare Chairperson

¶9

Anupam

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Modinagar Paper Mills Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Modinagar Paper Mills Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

State Bank of India versus Nischal Jain and 2 Ors.

Mohammad Haq Ali versus Bank of India and Anr.

Smt Meenu Agarwal versus District Magistrate Pauri Gharwal and Others

Rajesh Kumar Mishra versus Bank of Baroda and Ors.

M/S Maa Vaishnav Agencies and Anothers versus Canara Bank and Anr.

Canara Bank versus M/s Maruti Nandan Foods Products Pvt. Ltd. and 4 Ors.