GOPAL PRASAD AGRAWAL Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Acharya, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, impugned is order dtd. 4/3/2022 made by National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Cuttack Bench. He submits, application was made under sec. 95 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 by the bank against his client for initiating insolvency proceeding. It was done without notice to his client. There is no reason in impugned order as to why it was made ex-parte. He submits, there has been gross violation of principles of natural justice. He seeks interference.

(2.) Impugned order appears to have been made under sec. 99 upon the adjudicating authority having appointed Resolution Professional (RP) under sec. 97. Paragraph 10 in impugned order is reproduced below.

(3.) It appears from above quoted paragraph 10 in impugned order that RP has been appointed acting on proposal of applicant bank. On query from Court, Mr. Acharya submits, there has not been any amendment to sec. 97. Said provision does not appear to empower adjudicating authority to nominate a resolution professional on proposal made by applying creditor or debtor. In the circumstances, impugned order will remain stayed till next date.