# In the matter of Thiagarajan Murugesan. Vs. G. Gunasekaran & Ors. CA(AT)(Insolvency) No. 809-2019

> NCLAT judgment dated 2019-08-08. Citation: TCN-2019-NCLAT-00363. The case involves an appeal against an order passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National…

- **Court:** NCLAT
- **Order date:** 8 Aug 2019
- **Citation:** TCN-2019-NCLAT-00363
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/thiagarajan-murugesan-vs-g-gunasekaran-ors-ca-78e8419d

## Summary

### Background

The case involves an appeal against an order passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Special Bench, Chennai, dated July 17, 2019. The Adjudicating Authority had directed R1 to R4 to provide required documents to the Resolution Professional (RP) within 10 days, failing which the District Collector of Madurai was requested to assist the RP in taking custody of records and providing assistance in discharging RP's functions during the CIRP period, as per Section 19(2) of the IBC r/w Section 429 of the Companies Act, 2013. The appellant claims to not be a director or shareholder since 2015 and states that some properties belong to him.

## Facts

The Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Special Bench, Chennai, issued an order on July 17, 2019, directing R1 to R4 to provide necessary documents to the Resolution Professional (RP) within 10 days. If they failed to comply, the District Collector of Madurai was requested to assist the RP in taking custody of the records and providing assistance for the RP's functions during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). This direction was based on Section 19(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) read with Section 429 of the Companies Act, 2013. The Appellant, who was the 1st Respondent to the application before the Adjudicating Authority, appealed the order. The Appellant's counsel argued that the Appellant is no longer a director or

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the Appellant, claiming to no longer be a director or shareholder, is obligated to …

**Ratio:** The principle of cooperation with the Resolution Professional is essential for the smooth

…

**Reasoning:** The court emphasized the Appellant's duty to cooperate with the RP, regardless of their

…

**Interpretation:** The I&B Code mandates cooperation from all relevant parties to ensure the

…

**Application:** The court directed the Appellant to cooperate with the RP, implying that the

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** S.J. Mukhop…; A.I.S. C…; +1 more
- **Appellants:** Thiagarajan…
- **Respondents:** Corporate…; G. Gunase…

## Timeline

- **2019-07-17 — Impugned Order by…**: The Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Special Bench, Chennai,…
- **2019-08-08 — NCLAT Or…**: The NCLAT disposed of the appeal with observations, directing the Appellant to cooperate…

## Legal provisions

- [Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 19(2) — Personnel to extend co-operation to interim…](https://caseease.in/legal-provisions/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016/section-19)

---

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/thiagarajan-murugesan-vs-g-gunasekaran-ors-ca-78e8419d