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

> NCLAT judgment dated 2025-04-30. Citation: TCN-2025-NCLAT-00072. These are three connected Company Appeals (180/2025, 181/2025, 182/2025) involving similar…

- **Court:** NCLAT
- **Order date:** 30 Apr 2025
- **Citation:** TCN-2025-NCLAT-00072
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/sadananda-maiya-p-vs-karnataka-bank-ltd-ors-4eed52a0

## Summary

### Background

These are three connected Company Appeals (180/2025, 181/2025, 182/2025) involving similar questions of fact and law. The appeals challenge orders passed by the NCLT Bengaluru under Section 97 of the I&B Code, 2016, regarding the appointment of a Resolution Professional (RP) for the Insolvency Resolution Process (IRP) initiated under Section 95 of the I&B Code against the Appellants, who are personal guarantors. The Appellants contend that the Adjudicating Authority should have directed the IBBI to nominate an RP instead of appointing the RP proposed by the Financial Creditor.

## Facts

Mr. Sadananda Maiya P, Mr. Sudarshan Maiya, and Mrs. Sunanda Maiya (the Appellants) filed separate Company Appeals (180/2025, 181/2025, 182/2025) challenging orders passed by the NCLT Bengaluru. These orders, dated 28.01.2025, appointed Mr. Balakrishnan Venkatachalam as the Resolution Professional (RP) under Section 97 of the I&B Code, 2016, in proceedings initiated by Karnataka Bank Ltd (the Financial Creditor) under Section 95 of the I&B Code. The proceedings were initiated against the Appellants as personal guarantors. The Appellants argued that the NCLT erred by appointing the RP recommended by the Financial Creditor instead of directing the IBBI to nominate an RP, as allegedly required under Section 97(3) of the I&B Code. The interim moratorium was

…

## 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 a Resolution Professional under Section 97 of the I&B Code is

…

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

…

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

…

**Application:** In this case, the Appellants' challenge to the RP's appointment is premature

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** Sharad Kumar…; Jatindranat…
- **Appellants:** Sadananda M…
- **Respondents:** Karnataka Bank…

## Timeline

- **2025-01-28 — Impugned…**: NCLT Bengaluru passed orders appointing Mr. Balakrishnan Venkatachalam as the Resolution…
- **2025-04-30 — Order Da…**: Date of the NCLAT order…

## Legal provisions

- [Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 97 — Appointment of resolution professional](https://caseease.in/legal-provisions/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016/section-97)

---

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-4eed52a0