Case Law Details
Beauty Etiole Pvt. Ltd. Vs C. Sanjeevi & 2 Ors. (NCLAT Chennai)
It is clear that the ‘Adjudicating Authority’ had not addressed the legal aspects of the matter that whether the Respondent No.1 / Resolution Professional had any authority in Law to freeze Bank Account belonging to the Appellant. Since that aspect of the matter was not addressed by the ‘Adjudicating Authority’ at the time of passing of impugned order dated 01.11.2021 in IA(IBC)/926(CHE)/2021 in IBA/1423/2019, this ‘Tribunal’ is constrained to interfere with the said order, and sets aside the same because of the fact that the Respondent No.1 / Resolution Professional, in Law has only an authority to exercise control over Bank Accounts operated by the ‘Corporate Debtor’ and not otherwise.
FULL TEXT OF THE NCLAT JUDGMENT/ORDER
Heard the Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Ramakrishnan Viraraghavan appearing for the Appellant and Learned Counsel Ms. M. Savitha Devi appearing for the Respondent No.2.
There is no representation on the side of the Respondent No.1 at the time of calling of the matter. The notice of service was effected upon the Respondent No.1 on 12.02.2022, as evidenced by the ‘Affidavit’ of service dated 18.02.2022 filed on behalf of the Appellant and the same is hereby recorded.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
