# In the matter of Palogix Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ICICI Bank Ltd. CA (AT) No. 30-2017

> NCLAT judgment dated 2017-09-20. Citation: TCN-2017-NCLAT-00115. ICICI Bank Limited, acting as the Financial Creditor, initiated a Corporate Insolvency…

- **Court:** NCLAT
- **Order date:** 20 Sept 2017
- **Citation:** TCN-2017-NCLAT-00115
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/palogix-infrastructure-pvt-ltd-vs-icici-bank-ltd-ca-a84bda6c

## Summary

### Background

ICICI Bank Limited, acting as the Financial Creditor, initiated a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against Palogix Infrastructure Private Limited, the Corporate Debtor, under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (I&B Code), 2016. The application was initially filed through a Power of Attorney (POA) holder. A Division Bench of the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata Bench) issued conflicting orders regarding the maintainability of the application filed through a POA holder. One member held it not maintainable, while the other held it maintainable because the POA was in favor of the Legal Manager. The matter was then referred to a larger bench to decide on the validity of filing the application under Section 7 of

…

## Facts

ICICI Bank Limited, the Financial Creditor, filed an application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, to initiate Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against Palogix Infrastructure Private Limited, the Corporate Debtor. The application was filed through a Power of Attorney (POA) holder. The Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata Bench) initially passed two separate orders regarding the maintainability of the application filed through a POA holder. One order deemed it not maintainable, while the other found it maintainable. The case was then referred to a larger bench to determine whether a POA holder, authorized on 20/10/2014 to file suits and proceedings for recovery, could file an application for CIRP under

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether The Constituted Attorney authorised on 20/10/2014 to file suits and/or proceedings against …

**Ratio:** A Power of Attorney holder cannot initiate CIRP under Section 7 of the I&B Code

…

**Reasoning:** The Tribunal reasoned that the I&B Code requires specific authorization for

…

**Interpretation:** The interpretation of Section 7 of the I&B Code, read with the Adjudicating

…

**Application:** In this case, the POA holder was authorized to file suits and proceedings for

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** S.J. Mukhop…
- **Respondents:** Palogix Infrastruc…; ICICI Bank…

## Timeline

- **2017-04-12 — Order by Adjudicating…**: Adjudicating Authority directed ICICI Bank to rectify defects in the application by…
- **2017-05-16 — Subsequent Order by…**: Adjudicating Authority admitted the application after the defects were purportedly…

## Legal provisions

- [Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 7 — Initiation of corporate insolvency resolution…](https://caseease.in/legal-provisions/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016/section-7)

---

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/palogix-infrastructure-pvt-ltd-vs-icici-bank-ltd-ca-a84bda6c