Case Law Details
Rajesh Narang Vs Durha Vitrak Pvt Ltd (NCLAT Delhi)
NCLAT Delhi held that impugned order is liable to be set aside as resolution professional didn’t took reasonable step to get the Corporate Debtor as going concern which is mandated as per Section 25(2)(h) of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
Facts- The present appeal has been preferred by an ex-Director of Durha Vitrak Pvt Ltd who was running a full operational hospital namely Febris Multispeciality Hospital of 150 beds (hereinafter referred to as ‘Corporate Debtor’) which was earlier under Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (hereinafter referred to as ‘CIRP’). The appeal has been preferred under Section 61 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as IBC).
It is the case of the applicant that the application for liquidation was first heard by the Division Bench of NCLT consisting Hon’ble Justice BSV Prakash Kumar, Acting President and Mr. V.K. Subburaj Member (Technical) and order was reserved. However, before passing of the order one of the Member of the Bench i.e. Member (Technical) demitted the office. Even thereafter order was passed by a Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice Mr. BSV Prakash Kumar, Acting President sitting with Hon’ble Mr. Hemant Kumar Sarangi, Member (Technical).
Since it was against principle of natural justice a rectification petition was filed by one of the ex-Director with a prayer to rectify the order.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
