The case involves an application filed by the Resolution Professional (RP) under Section 19(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). The RP stated that the custody of assets and tally data was not provided. The director/promoter of the company, Mr. Sandeep Kumar, was represented and stated he was ready and willing to release the documents and tally data. Another application, CA-359(PB)/2020, filed by the RP seeking an extension, was not supported by a resolution and was dismissed.
The Resolution Professional (RP) filed an application under Section 19(2) of the IBC, stating that the custody of assets and tally data was not provided. The director/promoter of the company, Mr. Sandeep Kumar, stated he was ready and willing to release the documents and tally data. The RP also filed another application seeking an extension, which was not supported by a resolution from the Committee of Creditors (CoC). The court considered both applications. The willingness of Mr. Sandeep Kumar to release the data is a key fact influencing the disposal of the first application. The absence of CoC resolution is a key fact for dismissing the second application.
Sign in to view the parties.
Order delivered on…
The case involves an application filed by the Resolution Professional (RP) under Section 19(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). The RP stated that the custody of assets and tally data was not provided. The director/promoter of the company, Mr. Sandeep Kumar, was represented and stated he was ready and willing to release the documents and tally data. Another application, CA-359(PB)/2020, filed by the RP seeking an extension, was not supported by a resolution and was dismissed.
The Resolution Professional (RP) filed an application under Section 19(2) of the IBC, stating that the custody of assets and tally data was not provided. The director/promoter of the company, Mr. Sandeep Kumar, stated he was ready and willing to release the documents and tally data. The RP also filed another application seeking an extension, which was not supported by a resolution from the Committee of Creditors (CoC). The court considered both applications. The willingness of Mr. Sandeep Kumar to release the data is a key fact influencing the disposal of the first application. The absence of CoC resolution is a key fact for dismissing the second application.
Order delivered on…