# In the matter of Medilux Laboratoris Pvt. Ltd. C.P. (I.B) No. 130-7-NCLT-AHM-2017

> NCLT judgment dated 2018-02-02. Citation: TCN-2018-NCLT-01880. The case involves a petition filed by Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani, Parmanand Kewalramani, and…

- **Court:** NCLT
- **Order date:** 2 Feb 2018
- **Citation:** TCN-2018-NCLT-01880
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclt-chandigarh/medilux-laboratoris-pvt-ltd-cp-ib-no-130-7-nclt-ahm-2017-3994aa41

## Summary

### Background

The case involves a petition filed by Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani, Parmanand Kewalramani, and Madhu Kewalramani under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, seeking to initiate Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against Medilux Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. The petitioners claim to have advanced money to the corporate debtor, which the corporate debtor acknowledged in its annual report for the financial year 2015-16. The respondent corporate debtor raised objections regarding the authorization of the first petitioner to file the petition, limitation, the nature of the debt, and the necessity of bank permission for repayment.

## Facts

Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani, Parmanand Kewalramani, and Madhu Kewalramani filed a petition under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, against Medilux Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. The petitioners claimed to have advanced money to the respondent corporate debtor, and the corporate debtor acknowledged the debt in its annual report for the financial year 2015-16. The amounts due were Rs. 18,18,793/-, Rs. 95,20,444/-, and Rs. 1,97,256/- to petitioners No. 1, 2, and 3, respectively. The petitioners also stated that the first petitioner is the power of attorney holder for petitioners No. 2 and 3. The respondent corporate debtor raised objections, including the lack of proper authorization for the first petitioner, the claim being barred by limitation, the amount

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the first petitioner is properly authorized to file the petition on behalf of petitioners …

**Ratio:** A 'Power of Attorney Holder' is not competent to file an application on behalf of a

…

**Reasoning:** The court considered the consent and nomination letters issued by petitioners No. 2 and 3

…

**Interpretation:** The court interpreted that the consent and nomination letters, coupled with the

…

**Application:** The court applied this reasoning to the facts, finding that the consent and

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** BIKKI RAVEENDRA…
- **Appellants:** Sunil Paramanand…
- **Respondents:** Medilux Laboratori…

## Timeline

- **2016-01-01 — Financial…**: Amounts due to petitioners acknowledged in the annual report for the financial year…
- **2016-04-06 — Sanction…**: Sanction letter issued with condition…

## Legal provisions

- [Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 7 — Initiation of corporate insolvency resolution…](https://caseease.in/legal-provisions/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016/section-7)

---

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/nclt-chandigarh/medilux-laboratoris-pvt-ltd-cp-ib-no-130-7-nclt-ahm-2017-3994aa41