# In the matter of State Bank of India vs. Mukesh Hariram Bansal

> NCLAT judgment dated 2024-05-01. Citation: TCN-2024-NCLAT-00467. The appeal is against the order dated 17.04.2024 passed by the Adjudicating Authority…

- **Court:** NCLAT
- **Order date:** 1 May 2024
- **Citation:** TCN-2024-NCLAT-00467
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/state-bank-of-india-vs-mukesh-hariram-bansal-44f7ceb2

## Summary

### Background

The appeal is against the order dated 17.04.2024 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Ahmedabad Court-2) in IA/514(AHM)2024 in C.P.(IB)/119(AHM)2023, which rejected the application filed by the State Bank of India for replacement of the Resolution Professional and imposed a cost of Rs. 1 lakh. The Adjudicating Authority had previously appointed a Resolution Professional by order dated 11.03.2023, following an application under Section 95. The State Bank of India then filed an application on 19.03.2023, seeking the replacement of the Resolution Professional, citing that another Resolution Professional was already handling the personal guarantees insolvency of the group companies.

## Facts

The State Bank of India filed an application for the replacement of the Resolution Professional. The Adjudicating Authority rejected the application and imposed a cost of Rs. 1 lakh. The Adjudicating Authority had appointed the Resolution Professional on 11.03.2023. The State Bank of India filed an application on 19.03.2023 for replacement of the Resolution Professional. The reason for seeking replacement was that another Resolution Professional was already looking after the personal guarantees insolvency of the group companies. The Adjudicating Authority recorded that the State Bank of India had not complied with the order and had not handed over the documents to the Resolution Professional. The State Bank of India argued that the application for replacement was filed

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the Adjudicating Authority erred in rejecting the application filed by the State Bank of …

**Ratio:** The Adjudicating Authority should consider the grounds for replacement of the Resolution

…

**Reasoning:** The NCLAT reasoned that the Adjudicating Authority committed an error by rejecting the

…

**Interpretation:** This interprets the power of the Adjudicating Authority to reject applications

…

**Application:** The ratio and reasoning were applied to set aside the Adjudicating Authority's

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** Ashok Bh…; Barun M…
- **Appellants:** State Bank of…
- **Respondents:** Mukesh Hariram…
- **Advocates:** HARSHIT…; Prafful…; +2 more

## Timeline

- **2023-03-11 — Appointment of…**: The Adjudicating Authority appointed the Resolution Professional by order dated…
- **2023-03-19 — Application for…**: The State Bank of India filed an application on 19.03.2023 seeking the replacement of the…

## 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/state-bank-of-india-vs-mukesh-hariram-bansal-44f7ceb2