# In the matter of Anil Goel (Resolution Professional) Vs. LML Ltd. CA (AT) No. 131-2018

> NCLAT judgment dated 2018-09-07. Citation: TCN-2018-NCLAT-00121. The appeal was preferred by the Resolution Professional against an order dated March 23,…

- **Court:** NCLAT
- **Order date:** 7 Sept 2018
- **Citation:** TCN-2018-NCLAT-00121
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/anil-goel-resolution-professional-vs-lml-ltd-ca-da1130e0

## Summary

### Background

The appeal was preferred by the Resolution Professional against an order dated March 23, 2018, specifically concerning observations made in paragraph 4 of that order. The appellant's counsel argued that adverse remarks against the Resolution Professional were unwarranted, as they were not obligated to file progress reports under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). The court noted that the Resolution Professional failed to complete the resolution process within the initial 180-day period, which was extended by 90 days at the request of the Committee of Creditors and the Resolution Professional.

## Facts

Anil Goel, the Resolution Professional, filed an appeal against an order dated March 23, 2018, due to observations made in paragraph 4 of that order. The Resolution Professional's counsel argued that the adverse remarks were uncalled for because the Resolution Professional was not required to file progress reports under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). The Resolution Professional failed to complete the resolution process within the initial 180-day period, which was extended by 90 days at the request of the Committee of Creditors and the Resolution Professional. The Resolution Professional did not submit the progress report within 270 days.

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the adverse remarks made against the Resolution Professional were justified given the …

**Ratio:** The court held that the Resolution Professional was not careful in following the

…

**Reasoning:** The court reasoned that the Resolution Professional had failed to complete the resolution

…

**Interpretation:** The court interpreted the circumstances to mean that the Resolution

…

**Application:** The court applied this reasoning to the specific facts of the case, noting that

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** S.J. Mukhop…; Bansi Lal…
- **Appellants:** Anil…
- **Respondents:** LML L…
- **Advocates:** Tarun M…

## Timeline

- **2018-03-23 — Order Da…**: Order against which the…
- **2018-09-07 — Appeal De…**: The court disposed of the…

---

This is a preview. The full structured summary, issues, precedents and source judgment are available on CaseEase - Legal Intelligence Simplified: https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/anil-goel-resolution-professional-vs-lml-ltd-ca-da1130e0