# In the matter of IDBI Bank Limited & Ors. vs. Sumit Binani

> NCLAT judgment dated 2023-12-21. Citation: TCN-2023-NCLAT-00010. The case involves an appeal against an order dated 23.08.2023 passed by the Adjudicating…

- **Court:** NCLAT
- **Order date:** 21 Dec 2023
- **Citation:** TCN-2023-NCLAT-00010
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/idbi-bank-limited-ors-vs-sumit-binani-0964193b

## Summary

### Background

The case involves an appeal against an order dated 23.08.2023 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench-II) in I.A. No. 1471/2022 in CP (IB) No. 492/7/HDB/2019. The appellant banks challenged the Adjudicating Authority's decision to dismiss their application seeking renewal of bank guarantees provided by the Corporate Debtor, KSK Mahanadi Power Company Ltd. The banks argued that renewal was essential to avoid invocation of liability and would benefit resolution applicants acquiring the Corporate Debtor as a going concern, potentially leading to customs duty exemptions.

## Facts

KSK Mahanadi Power Company Ltd. (KMPCL) is undergoing Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). Prior to the initiation of CIRP on 03.10.2019, KMPCL imported goods from China for its power plant construction. The Appellant Banks had issued Customs Bank Guarantees before the CIRP initiation, conditioned on the guarantees remaining active until Unit Nos. 2 & 5 achieved confirmed Mega Power Plant (MPP) status. Upon expiry of the guarantees, the Appellants sought renewal pending the MPP status grant. As of the hearing, Units 1, 2, 5 & 6 only had partial MPP status. The Deputy Commissioner, Paradip Customs Division, filed a claim on 04.11.2019 with the IRP/RP of KMPCL for INR 7,19,98,660/-. The CoC discussed the renewal issue in meetings on 14.10.2020,

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the Adjudicating Authority was justified in concluding that the Customs Bank Guarantees are …

**Ratio:** The Resolution Professional (RP) is empowered under Section 25(1) of the Insolvency and

…

**Reasoning:** The tribunal reasoned that since the Corporate Debtor was undergoing CIRP and no goods

…

**Interpretation:** Section 25(1) of the IBC grants the RP the authority to manage the Corporate

…

**Application:** In this case, the tribunal applied the ratio by considering the fact that KMPCL

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** Rakesh Kuma…; Shreesha…; +1 more
- **Appellants:** IDBI Bank L…
- **Respondents:** KSK Mahanadi…; Sumit B…

## Timeline

- **2019-10-03 — CIRP Init…**: Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) initiated for KSK Mahanadi Power Company…
- **2019-11-04 — Claim Fi…**: The Deputy Commissioner, Paradip Customs Division, filed a claim with the IRP/RP of KMPCL…

## Legal provisions

- [Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 61 — Appeals and Appellate Authority](https://caseease.in/legal-provisions/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016/section-61)

---

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/idbi-bank-limited-ors-vs-sumit-binani-0964193b