# In the matter of ICICI Bank Vs. Mr. Venkataramanarao Nagarajan, RP CA (AT) Nos. 772 & 774-2018

> NCLAT judgment dated 2018-12-13. Citation: TCN-2018-NCLAT-00018. ICICI Bank and State Bank of India, acting as financial creditors, filed appeals against an…

- **Court:** NCLAT
- **Order date:** 13 Dec 2018
- **Citation:** TCN-2018-NCLAT-00018
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/icici-bank-vs-mr-venkataramanarao-nagarajan-rp-ca-28969d1e

## Summary

### Background

ICICI Bank and State Bank of India, acting as financial creditors, filed appeals against an order passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Chennai. The application filed by the appellant(s) on behalf of the 'committee of creditors' to remove Mr. V. Nagarajan, the ‘Resolution Professional', was rejected, and an order of liquidation was passed under Section 33(1)(a)/34(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The 'committee of creditors' had decided to remove Mr. V. Nagarajan by a 100% majority vote. Despite this, the miscellaneous application preferred by the 'committee of creditors' was rejected, and the application preferred by Mr. V. Nagarajan, Resolution Professional, for liquidation was approved.

## Facts

ICICI Bank and State Bank of India, as financial creditors, appealed an order from the NCLT Chennai. The NCLT rejected the creditors' application to remove Mr. V. Nagarajan as Resolution Professional and approved liquidation. The Committee of Creditors (CoC) voted unanimously to remove Mr. Nagarajan. Despite the CoC's decision, their application was rejected, and Mr. Nagarajan's application for liquidation was approved. No resolution plan was approved within 270 days, which lapsed on September 5, 2018. The Resolution Professional then filed a liquidation application, which was accepted. The appeal was against the order dated October 31, 2018.

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the order of liquidation can be declared illegal when more than 270 days have passed since …

**Ratio:** The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) sets a timeline for the completion of the

…

**Reasoning:** The court reasoned that since more than 270 days had passed without a resolution plan

…

**Interpretation:** The IBC mandates a time-bound resolution process. Exceeding the timeline has

…

**Application:** In this case, the 270-day timeline had lapsed. Therefore, the court held that

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** S.J. Mukhop…; JusticeBansi Lal…
- **Appellants:** ICICI Ban…
- **Respondents:** Venakataramanarao…

## Timeline

- **2018-10-31 — Impugned Ord…**: Order dated 31st October 2018,…
- **2018-09-05 — 270 Days…**: 270 days having lapsed on…

## Legal provisions

- [Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 33(1) — Initiation of liquidation](https://caseease.in/legal-provisions/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016/section-33)

---

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/icici-bank-vs-mr-venkataramanarao-nagarajan-rp-ca-28969d1e