The case involves the appointment of Mr. Damodar Prasad Gupta as a Resolution Professional (RP). The Tribunal passed an order on 06.09.2024 appointing him as RP. However, Mr. Gupta did not take steps in the matter as per Section 99 of IBC, 2016, because he was not the IP who accorded his consent to the creditor, Central Bank of India, to act as RP. Mr. Gupta received the order on 10.09.2024 but did not inform the Bench about his stand earlier.
Mr. Damodar Prasad Gupta was appointed as RP in terms of the order dated 06.09.2024. The order was passed by the Tribunal. Mr. Gupta received the order on 10.09.2024. Mr. Gupta did not take steps in the matter according to Section 99 of IBC, 2016. Mr. Gupta did not inform the Bench about his stand earlier. Central Bank of India is the creditor involved. The Tribunal has listed the matter on 04.11.2024.
Sign in to view the parties.
Order passed by the…
Mr. Damodar…
The case involves the appointment of Mr. Damodar Prasad Gupta as a Resolution Professional (RP). The Tribunal passed an order on 06.09.2024 appointing him as RP. However, Mr. Gupta did not take steps in the matter as per Section 99 of IBC, 2016, because he was not the IP who accorded his consent to the creditor, Central Bank of India, to act as RP. Mr. Gupta received the order on 10.09.2024 but did not inform the Bench about his stand earlier.
Mr. Damodar Prasad Gupta was appointed as RP in terms of the order dated 06.09.2024. The order was passed by the Tribunal. Mr. Gupta received the order on 10.09.2024. Mr. Gupta did not take steps in the matter according to Section 99 of IBC, 2016. Mr. Gupta did not inform the Bench about his stand earlier. Central Bank of India is the creditor involved. The Tribunal has listed the matter on 04.11.2024.
Order passed by the…
Mr. Damodar…