Case Law Details
In re Siri Kishan Aggarwal (NCLT Delhi)
In a recent ruling by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) Delhi in the case of Siri Kishan Aggarwal, an interesting aspect regarding the appointment of a Resolution Professional (RP) under Section 97(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) has been highlighted. The case sheds light on whether a hearing is mandated by the Adjudicating Authority during the appointment process.
The petitioner, Mr. Siri Kishan Aggarwal, filed a petition under Section 94(1) of the IBC seeking the initiation of the Insolvency Resolution Process (IR Process) against himself, as the Personal Guarantor of M/s Ambica Timber Trade Private Limited, which was in liquidation. The petitioner proposed the name of Mr. Manish Santosh Buchasia to act as the Resolution Professional (RP) in the matter.
Upon examination, the NCLT observed that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the matter of Dilip B Jiwrajka Vs. Union of India & Ors., concluded that no judicial adjudication is involved at the stages envisaged in Sections 95-99 of the IBC. Additionally, the Supreme Court held that no hearing is required by the Adjudicating Authority at the stage when it appoints a Resolution Professional under Section 97(5) of the IBC.
Based on this precedent, the NCLT appointed Mr. Manish Santosh Buchasia as the Resolution Professional in the matter, directing him to file the Assignment Declaration within seven days from the date of the order. Furthermore, the Resolution Professional was instructed to file his report in accordance with Section 99 of the Code and the relevant Regulations within the stipulated timeline.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
