# In the matter of Mrs Ramanathan Bhuvaneshwari Vs Vipin Kumar & Ors CA (AT) No. 543-544 -2018

> NCLAT judgment dated 2019-02-04. Citation: TCN-2019-NCLAT-00801. The case involves multiple appeals (Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 543, 544, 571, and…

- **Court:** NCLAT
- **Order date:** 4 Feb 2019
- **Citation:** TCN-2019-NCLAT-00801
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/mrs-ramanathan-bhuvaneshwari-vs-vipin-kumar-ors-ca-64ce7192

## Summary

### Background

The case involves multiple appeals (Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 543, 544, 571, and 598 of 2018) against a common order dated August 20, 2018, passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Bengaluru Bench. The Adjudicating Authority considered allegations made by the Resolution Professional regarding fraud and misappropriation in Tejkamal Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd., and directed the Central Government to investigate through the SFIO. The appeals challenge this order, arguing that the Adjudicating Authority lacked jurisdiction to direct the Central Government to investigate under Section 213 of the Companies Act.

## Facts

The 'Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process' was initiated against ‘Tejkamal Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd.' Mrs. Ramanathan Bhuvaneshwari was appointed as ‘Resolution Professional'. The Resolution Professional filed an application under Section 66 of the I&B Code, leading to the impugned order passed on August 20, 2018, directing the Central Government to investigate through SFIO. The appellants challenged the order, arguing the Adjudicating Authority lacked jurisdiction under Section 213 of the Companies Act. During the appeal, an application for withdrawal of the company petition was moved under Section 12A and approved by the Committee of Creditors with over 90% voting share. The Adjudicating Authority allowed the withdrawal on November 19, 2018. The appeals

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the Adjudicating Authority had the jurisdiction to direct the Central Government to …

**Ratio:** The ratio is based on the interpretation of Section 213 of the Companies Act, which

…

**Reasoning:** The appellate tribunal found that the Adjudicating Authority did not provide sufficient

…

**Interpretation:** Section 213 of the Companies Act requires the Adjudicating Authority to form an

…

**Application:** In this case, the appellate tribunal found that the Adjudicating Authority did

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** S.J. Mukhop…; Bansi Lal…
- **Appellants:** RamanathanBhuvanes…
- **Respondents:** Tejkamal Pharmaceu…; Vipin K…

## Timeline

- **2018-08-20 — Impugned…**: The Adjudicating Authority (NCLT), Bengaluru Bench, passed an order directing the Central…
- **2018-11-19 — Withdrawal Application…**: The Adjudicating Authority allowed the application for withdrawal of the company petition…

## Legal provisions

- [Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 66 — Fraudulent trading or wrongful trading](https://caseease.in/legal-provisions/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016/section-66)

---

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/mrs-ramanathan-bhuvaneshwari-vs-vipin-kumar-ors-ca-64ce7192