Delhi HC Rejects Plea Against BCCI Team Named 'Team India', Terms it a Sheer Waste of Time  ||  Bombay HC: No Absolute Right for Citizens to Access Public Offices  ||  Delhi HC: Suit Withdrawal After Compromise Doesn’t Result in Executable Decree  ||  Delhi HC: ITSC Abolition Doesn’t Void Settlement Pleas Filed Between Feb 1–Mar 31, 2021  ||  Rajasthan HC: State Must Set Up Trauma Centre, Art Institute; Temple Board Can Only Assist  ||  Kerala HC: LIC Cancer Cover Starts From First Diagnosis After Waiting Period, Not Expert Opinion  ||  Kerala HC: Spouse’s Ill Treatment of Children is Cruelty under Section 10(1) Divorce Act  ||  Supreme Court Acquits Chennai Man Sentenced to Death in Child Rape-Murder Case  ||  SC: Only Disclosure Leading to Weapon Recovery Admissible under Section 27 Evidence Act  ||  Supreme Court Orders Strict Enforcement on Helmets, Lane Discipline & Headlight Use    

Rajendra Narottamdas Sheth & Ors. Vs. Chandra Prakash Jain & Ors. - (Supreme Court) (30 Sep 2021)

Power of attorney holder of a financial creditor who has been given authorisation can file an application under Section 7 of IBC on behalf of it

MANU/SC/0744/2021

Insolvency

Respondent No. 2 filed an application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) which was admitted by the National Company Law Tribunal, (‘NCLT’ or ‘Adjudicating Authority’). The Appellants, who are the suspended directors of the board of R.K. Infratel Ltd. (‘Corporate Debtor’), filed an appeal which was rejected by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Delhi (‘NCLAT’). Therefore, present Appeal.

Essentially, there are two issues that arise for consideration in present Appeal. The first pertains to the maintainability of the application under Section 7 of the IBC filed by a power of attorney holder. The second relates to the question of limitation.

In the present case, Praveen Kumar Gupta has been given general authorisation by the Bank with respect to all the business and affairs of the Bank, including commencement of legal proceedings before any court or tribunal with respect to any demand and filing of all necessary applications. Such authorisation, having been granted by way of a power of attorney pursuant to a resolution passed by the Bank’s board of directors on does not impair Mr. Gupta’s authority to file an application under Section 7 of the IBC. It is therefore clear that the application has been filed by an authorised person on behalf of the Financial Creditor and the objection of the Appellants on the maintainability of the application on this ground is untenable.

The burden of prima facie proving occurrence of the default and that the application filed under Section 7 of the IBC is within the period of limitation, is entirely on the financial creditor. While the decision to admit an application under Section 7 of IBC is typically made on the basis of material furnished by the financial creditor, the Adjudicating Authority is not barred from examining the material that is placed on record by the corporate debtor to determine that such application is not beyond the period of limitation. Undoubtedly, there is sufficient material in the present case to justify enlargement of the extension period in accordance with Section 18 of the Limitation Act and such material has also been considered by the Adjudicating Authority before admitting the application under Section 7 of the Code. Appeal dismissed.

Tags : AUTHORISATION   GRANT   LEGALITY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2025 - All Rights Reserved