# In the matter of Anil Kumar Vs. Allahabad Bank and Ors. CA (AT) (Ins) No. 786 of 2020

> NCLAT judgment dated 2021-07-20. Citation: TCN-2021-NCLAT-00169. The appeal arises from an order dated 28.07.2020 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal…

- **Court:** NCLAT
- **Order date:** 20 Jul 2021
- **Citation:** TCN-2021-NCLAT-00169
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/anil-kumar-vs-allahabad-bank-and-ors-ca-8fa5e6ff

## Summary

### Background

The appeal arises from an order dated 28.07.2020 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Ahmedabad Bench, in I.A. No. 90 of 2020 in I.A. No. 691 of 2019 in C.P. (I.B.) No. 397/NCLT/AHM/2018. The NCLT appointed a new Interim Resolution Professional (IRP), replacing the Appellant. The initial application under Section 7 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016, was filed by M/s. Abhinandan Multitrade Pvt. Ltd. and was admitted on 06.09.2019, leading to the appointment of the Appellant as IRP. The Committee of Creditors (CoC) was constituted, but concerns arose regarding the eligibility and classification of creditors, particularly non-financial institutions. A stalemate developed in the appointment of IRP/RP due to a conflict between secured and

…

## Facts

M/s. Abhinandan Multitrade Pvt. Ltd. initiated corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) against M/s. KSL & Industries Limited by filing an application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). The application was admitted on 06.09.2019, and Anil Kumar was appointed as the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP). After the IRP took charge, the Committee of Creditors (CoC) was constituted. The IRP provided a list of financial creditors, revealing that out of 37 creditors, only 7 were financial institutions, and 30 were non-financial institutions and corporate debtors. The voting shares of financial institutions in the CoC were 36.53%, while non-financial institutions/corporates held 63.47%. Allahabad Bank, a creditor, raised concerns

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) can invoke its inherent powers under Rule 11 of …

**Ratio:** The NCLT has the inherent jurisdiction to pass orders to meet the ends of justice and

…

**Reasoning:** The NCLAT reasoned that the NCLT rightly invoked its inherent jurisdiction under Rule 11,

…

**Interpretation:** Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules, 2016, provides the NCLT with inherent powers to make

…

**Application:** In this case, the NCLT applied Rule 11 to overcome the stalemate in the

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** Anant Bijay…; Shreesha…; +1 more
- **Appellants:** Anil K…
- **Respondents:** KSL & Industries…; Allahabad…

## Timeline

- **2018-01-01 — Filing of C.P. (I.B.)…**: The C.P. (I.B.) No. 397 of 2018 was filed under Section 7 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy…
- **2019-09-06 — Admission of Ap…**: The application was admitted, and the Appellant was appointed as Interim Resolution…

## Legal provisions

- [Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 60(5) — Adjudicating Authority for corporate persons](https://caseease.in/legal-provisions/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016/section-60)

---

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-kumar-vs-allahabad-bank-and-ors-ca-8fa5e6ff