Home Case Index All Cases Insolvency and Bankruptcy Insolvency and Bankruptcy + Tri Insolvency and Bankruptcy - 2017 (5) TMI Tri This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (5) TMI 373 - Tri - Insolvency and BankruptcyQualification of attorney holder to initiate proceeding under Section 7 of the Code of 2016 - corporate insolvency resolution proceeding under the Code of 2016 - Held that:- One may note here that under the power of attorney in question, the author thereof had bestowed various power on the attorney appointed thereunder which included the power to initiate winding proceeding as well. But then, in view of our foregoing discussion, its needs to be concluded conclusively that the power, so given to the attorney under the instrument above, can never be stretched to embrace the power to initiate a corporate insolvency resolution proceeding under section 7 of the Code of 2016. Code of 2016 itself constituted two totally new classes of Adjudicating Authorities for purpose of adjudication of the matters, covered by the Code, aforesaid and such Authorities were even not in existence when the power of Attorney was executed on 20.10.2014. All these speak loud and clear that under no circumstances, the power of attorney in question can be said to have authorised the attorney, appointed there-under, to initiate a corporate insolvency resolution proceeding under section 7 of the Code. I have no doubt, whatsoever, in my mind that when the financial creditor executed the power of attorney in question on 20.10.2014, he could not have visualized even remotely that the donee would be required, one day, to initiate a corporate insolvency resolution proceeding under the Code of 2016 which, as stated above, was not even in existence in 2014. Thus no hesitation in holding that Shri Srinjoy Bhattacharjee did not have requisite authority to initiate the proceeding under section 7 Code, 2016 against the corporate debtor. A perusal of the orders rendered by the learned Members of the NCLT, Kolkata Bench makes it clear. Therefore, this Bench has no occasion or the authority to embark upon the question which is sought to be presented before this court by the learned counsel for the corporate debtor.In view of the foregoing discussions, have found reason to concur with the finding arrived at by the learned Member (J) while differing respectfully from the conclusion, reached by the learned Member (T), NCLT, Kolkata Bench.Resultantly, the reference is answered as stated above.
|