The case involves an application (IA/5042/2024) for taking on record the RP's (Resolution Professional) report in a matter under Section 95(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The RP's report has been furnished to the Personal Guarantor. The court notes a significant delay of 625 days in the report's filing, despite the RP being informed of the assignment on 2024-06-12, while the appointment order was dated 2023-01-04. The court expresses concern over this delay and its potential impact on the case.
The State Bank of India (SBI) filed a case under Section 95(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 against Surender Kumar Gupta. An RP was appointed, and the RP's report was filed with a delay of 625 days. The RP claims to have been informed of the appointment on 2024-06-12, while the appointment order was dated 2023-01-04. The SBI, as the petitioner, allegedly failed to inform the RP about the appointment. The NCLT Registry also failed to communicate the appointment order. The court views the delay as extremely unfortunate and potentially fatal to the case.
Sign in to view the parties.
Date of the appointment…
Date on which the RP…
The case involves an application (IA/5042/2024) for taking on record the RP's (Resolution Professional) report in a matter under Section 95(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The RP's report has been furnished to the Personal Guarantor. The court notes a significant delay of 625 days in the report's filing, despite the RP being informed of the assignment on 2024-06-12, while the appointment order was dated 2023-01-04. The court expresses concern over this delay and its potential impact on the case.
The State Bank of India (SBI) filed a case under Section 95(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 against Surender Kumar Gupta. An RP was appointed, and the RP's report was filed with a delay of 625 days. The RP claims to have been informed of the appointment on 2024-06-12, while the appointment order was dated 2023-01-04. The SBI, as the petitioner, allegedly failed to inform the RP about the appointment. The NCLT Registry also failed to communicate the appointment order. The court views the delay as extremely unfortunate and potentially fatal to the case.
Date of the appointment…
Date on which the RP…