# In the matter of Ramanasree Consumer Products Private Limited IA No. 106-2020 in CP (IB) No. 158-10-AMR-2019

> NCLT judgment dated 2022-01-10. Citation: TCN-2022-NCLT-04479. Bank of India, as the sole member of the Committee of Creditors (CoC), filed an application…

- **Court:** NCLT
- **Order date:** 10 Jan 2022
- **Citation:** TCN-2022-NCLT-04479
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclt-division-bench-court-i-chenn/ramanasree-consumer-products-private-limited-ia-no-106-2020-in-cp-ib-no-158-10-a-166e024c

## Summary

### Background

Bank of India, as the sole member of the Committee of Creditors (CoC), filed an application against Ramanasree Consumer Products Private Limited, the Corporate Debtor, represented by the erstwhile Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) Mr. Pavan Kankani, and Respondents No.2 and No.3. The application contested the admission of claims by Respondents No.2 and No.3 by the erstwhile IRP, which allegedly reduced the Applicant Bank's voting share. Mr. Pavan Kankani was later replaced by Naga Bhushan Bhagawati following NCLAT orders, restoring the Applicant's voting share to 100%. The Applicant's grievance stemmed from the actions of the former IRP in admitting claims beyond the stipulated 90-day period from the commencement of the Insolvency Resolution Process.

## Facts

Bank of India initiated Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against Ramanasree Consumer Products Private Limited. Bank of India, being the sole member of the Committee of Creditors (CoC), filed an application challenging the admission of claims by Respondents No.2 and No.3 by the erstwhile Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) Mr. Pavan Kankani. The Applicant Bank alleged that the claims were admitted beyond the 90-day limitation period from the commencement of the Insolvency Resolution Process, as stipulated by Regulation 12 of IBBI Regulations, 2016. The Applicant also contended that the claims were admitted without proper verification and that the Corporate Debtor was classified as NPA with effect from 30.06.2016. The erstwhile IRP was later replaced by

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the erstwhile IRP acted correctly in …

**Ratio:** The duty of the IRP is only to collate all claims and they do not cast a duty upon the

…

**Reasoning:** The Tribunal reasoned that the IRP's role is primarily to collate claims, not to verify

…

**Interpretation:** The interpretation of the IRP's duties under the IBC and IBBI regulations is

…

**Application:** In this case, the Tribunal found that the erstwhile IRP had fulfilled his duty

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** TELAPROLU…
- **Appellants:** Bank of…
- **Respondents:** Ramanasree…; M/s. Ramanasree…

## Timeline

- **2016-06-30 — NPA Classif…**: Corporate Debtor classified as…
- **2019-11-15 — CP Admis…**: CP admitted as per the…

## Legal provisions

- [Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 60(5) — Adjudicating Authority for corporate persons](https://caseease.in/legal-provisions/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016/section-60)

---

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-division-bench-court-i-chenn/ramanasree-consumer-products-private-limited-ia-no-106-2020-in-cp-ib-no-158-10-a-166e024c