Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd. Vs Subhash Chandra (NCLT Delhi)
Appeal Number : (IB)-97/ND/2022
Date of Judgement/Order : 27/05/2024
Related Assessment Year :
Courts : NCLT
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd. Vs Subhash Chandra (NCLT Delhi)

In the case of Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd. vs. Subhash Chandra before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) Delhi, the tribunal delved into the intricate dynamics surrounding the role of the Resolution Professional (RP) in insolvency proceedings concerning Personal Guarantors. The case revolved around an application filed seeking the replacement of the RP, Mr. Raj Kamal Saraogi, with Mr. Arvind Kumar. The application alleged that Mr. Saraogi failed to comprehend the complexities of the Personal Guarantor’s business affairs, thereby necessitating his replacement.

The proceedings commenced with the tribunal addressing procedural matters concerning the timing of the hearing, acknowledging the bonafide belief of the applicant’s counsel regarding the timing change. Subsequently, the tribunal evaluated the application seeking the replacement of the RP, which was premised on the Personal Guarantor’s dissatisfaction with Mr. Saraogi’s understanding of his business interests during their meeting.

The RP and his counsel contested the allegations, denying assertions of bankruptcy remarks attributed to the RP. However, it was acknowledged that a meeting had indeed taken place between the RP and the Personal Guarantor at a hotel, raising questions about the necessity of legal representation during such interactions. The tribunal scrutinized the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) and associated regulations, emphasizing the RP’s role as a facilitator and consultant to the Personal Guarantor.

It was highlighted that the RP’s primary function is to assist the Personal Guarantor in formulating the repayment plan, as mandated by Section 105 of the IBC. The tribunal reiterated that there was no provision entitling the RP to engage legal representation during this stage of the process. Additionally, the tribunal questioned the need for conducting meetings at an expensive hotel, emphasizing the RP’s responsibility to conduct the insolvency resolution process efficiently.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031