IQBAL Jumabhoy Vs Manoj Kumar Anand (NCLAT Chennai)
NCLAT Chennai held that initiation of the IRP proceeding u/s. 95 of Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 against personal guarantor upheld as no principle of natural justice has been violated, and that the Resolution Professional has given sufficient opportunities. Accordingly, appeal dismissed.
Facts- Applications were filed u/s. 95 of the I & B Code, 2016, against respective personal guarantors/Appellants, that the Resolution Professional submitted his report u/s. 99 of I & B Code, 2016, recommending acceptance of the said applications and that Adjudicating Authority passed orders u/s. 100 of the I & B Code, 2016, admitting the respective applications preferred u/s. 95, thus ordering initiation of Insolvency Resolution Process against the Appellants.
It is the contention of the Appellants that the impugned orders are bad in the eyes of law, because at this stage, prior to passing of order u/s. 100 of the Code, they ought to have been heard prior to the acceptance of the report u/s. 99 of I & B Code, 2016, which has constituted as to be the reason and basis for admitting the petition u/s. 95 of the I & B Code, 2016.
Conclusion- Held that at the stage of the submission of the report under Section 99 of the I & B Code, 2016, which only facilitates the Ld. Adjudicating Authority to collate the necessary material in order to adjudicate on the need for initiation of the IRP proceeding under Section 95 of the I & B Code, 2016, no principle of natural justice has been violated, and that the Resolution Professional has given sufficient opportunities to present their cases. Further, as far as providing an opportunity to the Appellants to participate in the process of examination of the application/ report submitted by the Resolution Professional is concerned, the report has been given to them, and they have been given two months time to file their reply before right to file reply was forfeited. As I & B Code is a special statute, prescribing very strict timelines for the process thereunder, we hold that the opportunities given to the Appellants were sufficient.
