TMI Blog2023 (2) TMI 1033X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... RP as per timeline prescribed in the IBC. The mere fact that in an earlier Application filed by RP, liberty was granted only to file prosecution, does not preclude the Adjudicating Authority to consider a subsequent Application filed by the RP due to continued non-cooperation by suspended Directors. The Application had substantial grounds as evidenced from the orders of the Adjudicating Authority itself that it had issued various directions including a direction of personal appearance of Respondent No.1, which was issued after the Adjudicating Authority was fully satisfied, hence, there is no occasion to dismiss Section 19, sub-section (2) Application as frivolous and infructuous. Coming to the submission of learned Counsel for Respon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y order of the Adjudicating Authority dated 28.02.2022. The Appellant as RP issued email on 30.03.2022 and 02.04.2022 to the Respondent to cooperate and disclosed information. (ii) An IA(I.B.C.)/678(KB)2022 was filed by the RP under Section 19, sub-section (2) against the Respondent praying for direction to Respondent to disclose documents sought by the RP, after their being non-cooperation by the Respondent. (iii) Adjudicating Authority vide order dated 18.08.2022 issued notice to the Respondent and a direction was also issued to Respondent to furnish the entire information and all documents sought by the RP before the next date. Further direction was issued on 07.09.2022 on the said Application to Respondent No.1 to comply the direc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n for imposing cost of Rs.25,000/-. 4. The learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No.1, who has also filed a reply, submits that Application under Section 19, sub-section (2) is only filed to delay the process. It is submitted that Resolution Plan has already been approved by the Committee of Creditors ( CoC ) and orders on the Application seeking approval of Resolution Plan has been reserved on 09.12.2022. The Application under Section 19, sub-section (2) filed by the RP has thus, become infructuous. It is submitted that the Respondent has resigned from the Directorship of the Corporate Debtor on 14.08.2019, hence, there was no question of non-cooperation by Respondent No.1 The Appellant has not made out a prima facie case for issuing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... This is an application filed under section 19(2) of IBC, 2016 vide order dated7thSeptember, 2022. Keeping in view, the non-cooperation of Respondent No. 1 we directed the personal presence of Respondent No. 1 before this Adjudicating Authority on 16th September, 2022. 2. On 16th September, 2022 when this matter was taken the Ld. Counsel appearing for R1 inform that his client unable to move and therefore cannot be present personally. Today when the matter is taken up for consideration the resolution professional who is present in person states that R1 went to his office personally on 19th September 2022 at around 2:30 PM for discussing the issues relating to the information sought by the Resolution Professional. 3. We that as it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issued by this Adjudicating Authority, which would ultimately cause delay in process initiated under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. 9. We direct R1 to appear in person before this Adjudicating Authority on 21.11.2022. It is also made clear if, R1 fails to appear on the next date, we will be constrained to seek police assistance to ensure his appearance. 10. Rejoinder affidavit if any, be filed in the interregnum. 11. Post this matter on 21.10.2022. 8. On the next date, i.e. 21.10.2022, no order was passed on IA(I.B.C.)/678(KB)2022. On 09.11.2022, the Adjudicating Authority dispensed with the personal appearance of Respondent No.1 and fixed the matter for 02.12.2022. On 02.12.2022, following order was passed on IA( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ning a CIRP as per timeline prescribed in the IBC. The order dated 25.04.2022 was passed on IA filed by the IRP. The Appellant, who is a present RP was appointed by the order of the Adjudicating Authority dated 28.02.2022 and thereafter IA(I.B.C.)/678(KB)2022 was filed by the RP, on which on 10.08.2022 notices were issued. The Adjudicating Authority passed several orders on IA(I.B.C.)/678(KB)2022 as noticed above, where Adjudicating Authority opined that Respondent No.1 is deliberately not cooperating with the RP and is not complying with the directions issued by the Adjudicating Authority. The Adjudicating Authority directed personal appearance of Respondent No.1 on 07.09.2022 and the same was again reiterated on 14.10.2022 when Adjudicati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
