The case pertains to proceedings under Section 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). The applicant, Indian Bank (formerly known as Allahabad Bank), filed an application through RP Anil Kashil Drolia against the respondent, Ram Pratap Radhakishna Tayal, who is the personal guarantor of K-Lifestyle & Industries Ltd. The application was found to be defective due to unrectified mistakes from a previous order.
Indian Bank, formerly known as Allahabad Bank, filed an application under Section 95 of the IBC through its Resolution Professional (RP), Anil Kashil Drolia, against Ram Pratap Radhakishna Tayal, the personal guarantor of K-Lifestyle & Industries Ltd. The court observed that the mistakes pointed out in the previous order dated 2023-12-21 were not rectified by either the applicant or the RP. Furthermore, the RP was absent during the hearing despite being instructed to be present. Consequently, the court dismissed the application C.P.(IB)/191(AHM)2022 as defective, granting the applicant the liberty to file a fresh application. The registry was directed to provide a copy of the order to the IBBI for information. The failure to rectify the mistakes and the absence of
…Sign in to view the parties.
A previous order was…
The application C.P.(IB)/191(AHM)2022 was…
The case pertains to proceedings under Section 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). The applicant, Indian Bank (formerly known as Allahabad Bank), filed an application through RP Anil Kashil Drolia against the respondent, Ram Pratap Radhakishna Tayal, who is the personal guarantor of K-Lifestyle & Industries Ltd. The application was found to be defective due to unrectified mistakes from a previous order.
Indian Bank, formerly known as Allahabad Bank, filed an application under Section 95 of the IBC through its Resolution Professional (RP), Anil Kashil Drolia, against Ram Pratap Radhakishna Tayal, the personal guarantor of K-Lifestyle & Industries Ltd. The court observed that the mistakes pointed out in the previous order dated 2023-12-21 were not rectified by either the applicant or the RP. Furthermore, the RP was absent during the hearing despite being instructed to be present. Consequently, the court dismissed the application C.P.(IB)/191(AHM)2022 as defective, granting the applicant the liberty to file a fresh application. The registry was directed to provide a copy of the order to the IBBI for information. The failure to rectify the mistakes and the absence of
…A previous order was…
The application C.P.(IB)/191(AHM)2022 was…