The case involves a writ petition (W.P.(C) No.9920 of 2022) filed in the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack. The petitioner challenges an order dated 4th March, 2022, passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Cuttack Bench. The application was made under section 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, by the bank against the petitioner's client, initiating insolvency proceedings without notice. The petitioner alleges a violation of the principles of natural justice.
Gopal Prasad Agrawal filed a writ petition challenging an order by NCLT Cuttack Bench dated March 4, 2022. The order was made under section 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, initiated by State Bank of India against Agrawal's client. The petitioner argues that the order was passed without notice to his client, violating principles of natural justice. The NCLT order appears to have been made under section 99, appointing a Resolution Professional (RP) under section 97 based on the bank's proposal. The court questions the validity of appointing an RP based solely on the creditor's proposal, as it may not be authorized by section 97. The impugned order is stayed until the next hearing.
Sign in to view the parties.
NCLT, Cuttack Bench, passed an order under…
The High Court of Orissa at Cuttack stayed…
The case involves a writ petition (W.P.(C) No.9920 of 2022) filed in the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack. The petitioner challenges an order dated 4th March, 2022, passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Cuttack Bench. The application was made under section 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, by the bank against the petitioner's client, initiating insolvency proceedings without notice. The petitioner alleges a violation of the principles of natural justice.
Gopal Prasad Agrawal filed a writ petition challenging an order by NCLT Cuttack Bench dated March 4, 2022. The order was made under section 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, initiated by State Bank of India against Agrawal's client. The petitioner argues that the order was passed without notice to his client, violating principles of natural justice. The NCLT order appears to have been made under section 99, appointing a Resolution Professional (RP) under section 97 based on the bank's proposal. The court questions the validity of appointing an RP based solely on the creditor's proposal, as it may not be authorized by section 97. The impugned order is stayed until the next hearing.
NCLT, Cuttack Bench, passed an order under…
The High Court of Orissa at Cuttack stayed…