Case Law Details
Sunil kumar Agarwal S/O. Kishan Lal Agarwal Vs IBBI (Gujarat High Court)
1 Heard Mr.Percy Kavina, learned Senior Counsel with Mr.Vishal Dave, learned advocate with Mr.Nipun Singhvi, learned counsel for the petitioner.
2 Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 21.11.2022 passed by the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Board of India (Disciplinary Committee). The petitioner, in his capacity as an Interim Resolution Professional (IRP), in the process of corporate insolvency resolution on Brain Master’s Classes Private Limited and Eagle Corporation Private Limited was issued certain show cause notices for failing to discharge his duties. The Disciplinary Committee has found the petitioner of having committed a lapse in the conduct of C.I.R.P in the matter of Brain Master’s Classes Private Limited. According to the Board, it was incumbent upon the petitioner to have filed a necessary application either for approving the resolution plan or the liquidation of the corporate letter to Brain Master’s Classes Private Limited. In the opinion of the Board, in accordance with Sec.12 of the I.B.C, the CIRP has to be completed within a period of 180 days from the date of admission of the application to initiate such process. Since the period for the process in the case of Brain Master’s Classes Private Limited expired on 10.03.2020, in the opinion of the Board, the petitioner should have filed a necessary application for extension of approving the resolution or liquidation which he did not.
2.1 Mr.Kavina, learned Senior Counsel, would draw the Court’s attention to sub-section 2 of Sec.12 of the I.B.C Code which provides that a resolution professional shall file an application to the adjudicating authority to extend the period of corporate insolvency resolution process beyond 180 days, if instructed to do so by a resolution passed by a meeting of the Committee of Creditors (C.O.C) by a vote of 66% of the voting shares.
2.2 According to Mr.Kavina, learned Senior Counsel, therefore, the primary responsibility of calling for a meeting of the C.O.C’s would not be that of the petitioner for making an application for extension unless they are authorized by the C.O.C through a meeting in accordance with the provisions of Sub-section 2 of Section 12.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
