In the matter of Central Bank of India v. Kothapatti Raju, Cp (Ib) No. 89/95/AMR/2022
Case brief
What is this about?
The Tribunal appointed Mr. Madasa Kumar as the Interim Resolution Professional. It held that no notice is required before IRP appointment as Section 99(10) ensures natural justice. Respondent 2 is formally added only.
What did the court decide?
Appointment of Mr. Madasa Kumar as Interim Resolution Professional in CP(IB)No.89/95/AMR/2022.
What the court decided
2
NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL AMARAVATI BENCH (Video Conference)
PRESENT: JUSTICE TELAPROLU RAJANI – MEMBER JUDICIAL ATTENDANCE-CUM-ORDER SHEET OF THE HEARING HELD 10.10.2022 AT 10.30 AM
| TC/CP. Nos. | CA/IA No. | Section/ Rule |
Name of Parties |
|---|---|---|---|
| CP(IB)No.89/95/AMR/2022 | 95 of | Central Bank of India Vs. Mr. | |
| IBC | Kothapatti Raju & M/s Sri | ||
| Ananda Lakshmi Narasimha | |||
| Industries Private Limited |
Counsel for Petitioner(s):
Ries
| Name of the Counsel(s) Designation |
E-mail & Telephone No. Signature |
|---|
Counsel for Respondent(s):
Ries
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether notice is required to be given to the personal guarantor at the stage of appointment of the interim resolution professional under Section 95 of IBC.
Whether the applicant can appoint an interim resolution professional under Section 97 of IBC without a disciplinary proceeding pending report.
Whether principles of natural justice are violated by not hearing the respondents before the appointment of the interim resolution professional.
Parties & counsel
- applicant
Central Bank of India
- respondent
Mr. Kothapatti Raju
- respondent
Sri Ananda Lakshmi Narasimha Industries India Private Limited
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court