State Bank of India Vs Dr. Jitendra Das Maganti (NCLT Amaravati)
NCLT Amravati held that the approach of the creditor in filing the proof of due service of the demand notice straightway before Adjudicating Authority, without placing the same before the resolution professional, is improper.
Facts- The Present Application is filed under Section 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC, 2016) read with Rule 7(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority for Insolvency Resolution Process for Personal Guarantors to Corporate Debtors) Rules, 2019 by State Bank of India (creditor) for the purpose of initiating Insolvency Process against Dr. Jitendar Das Maganti [Personal Guarantor (PG)] for a default amount of Rs.129,58,95,550.79/-.
Conclusion- Held that, the approach of the creditor in filing the ‘proof’ relating to the ‘due’ service of the “demand notice” straightway before this Adjudicating Authority, without placing the same before the resolution professional, is improper and of no ‘avail’ to the applicant/creditor, inasmuch as, it is the ‘duty’ in terms of section 99 of IB Code, supra, of the Resolution Professional while preparing his report, recommending admission or rejection of the application, to examine whether the applicant has complied sub section 4 of section 95 of I&B Code, 2016 and this Tribunal, cannot be called upon to perform their function of the Resolution Professional.
