# In the matter of  Sadananda Maiya P vs. Karnataka Bank Ltd. & Ors.

> NCLAT judgment dated 2025-04-30. Citation: TCN-2025-NCLAT-00070. These are three connected Company Appeals (180/2025, 181/2025, 182/2025) that involve a…

- **Court:** NCLAT
- **Order date:** 30 Apr 2025
- **Citation:** TCN-2025-NCLAT-00070
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/sadananda-maiya-p-vs-karnataka-bank-ltd-ors-08a5e47c

## Summary

### Background

These are three connected Company Appeals (180/2025, 181/2025, 182/2025) that involve a common question of fact and law. The Appellants are challenging the appointment of the Resolution Professional (RP) under Section 97 of the I&B Code, 2016, arguing that the Adjudicating Authority should have directed the IBBI to nominate the RP instead of appointing the one proposed by the Financial Creditor. The appeals arise from orders passed by the NCLT Bengaluru in C.P. (IB) No.06/BB/2025, C.P. (IB) No.05/BB/2025 and No.04/BB/2025, respectively, initiating proceedings under Section 95 of the I&B Code, 2016, based on applications filed by the financial creditor, Karnataka Bank Ltd.

## Facts

Mr. Sadananda Maiya, Mr. Sudarshan Maiya, and Mrs. Sunanda Maiya (the Appellants in Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 180/2025, 181/2025 and 182/2025 respectively) are personal guarantors against whom insolvency proceedings were initiated under Section 95 of the I&B Code, 2016, by Karnataka Bank Ltd (the Financial Creditor). The Financial Creditor filed applications before the NCLT Bengaluru, seeking to initiate the Insolvency Resolution Process (IRP) against the Appellants. The NCLT appointed Mr. Balakrishnan Venkatachalam as the Resolution Professional (RP) under Section 97 of the I&B Code, 2016, based on the recommendation of the Financial Creditor. The Appellants challenged the appointment of the RP, arguing that the NCLT should have directed the IBBI to

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the Appellants have a cause of action to prefer an appeal against the impugned order of …

**Ratio:** The appointment of the Resolution Professional under Section 97 of the I&B Code,

…

**Reasoning:** The court relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Dilip B. Jiwrajka V. Union of India,

…

**Interpretation:** Section 97 of the I&B Code, 2016, should be interpreted as an enabling

…

**Application:** In this case, the Appellants challenged the appointment of the RP before the

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** Sharad Kumar…; Jatindranat…
- **Appellants:** Sadananda M…
- **Respondents:** Karnataka Bank…
- **Advocates:** G. Sri…; N.P. Viia…

## Timeline

- **2025-01-28 — Impugned…**: NCLT Bengaluru passed the impugned order in C.P. (IB) No.06/BB/2025, C.P. (IB)…
- **2025-04-30 — NCLAT Or…**: NCLAT dismissed the Company Appeals (AT) (CH)…

## Legal provisions

- [Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 95 — Application by creditor to initiate insolvency…](https://caseease.in/legal-provisions/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016/section-95)

---

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/sadananda-maiya-p-vs-karnataka-bank-ltd-ors-08a5e47c