Friday 16 October 2020

Asset Reconstruction Company (I) Limited (ARCIL) vs. Mr. Koteswara Rao Karuchola RP of Viceroy Hotels Ltd - Delay in filing Claim & CoC Membership

NCLAT (18.11.2019) in Asset Reconstruction Company (I) Limited (ARCIL) vs. Mr. Koteswara Rao Karuchola Resolution Professional of Viceroy Hotels Ltd. [Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 633 of 2018] held that once a decision was taken by the ‘Committee of Creditors’  to  call  for  a  meeting  for  removal  of  Koteswara Rao Karuchola as an ‘Resolution Professional’, it was improper for him to include Mahal Hotel Private Limited as ‘Financial Creditor’ of the Member of the ‘Committee of Creditors’.

Excerpts of the order;

In the ‘Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process’ against Viceroy Hotels Limited, Appellant – Asset Reconstruction Company (I) Limited (ARCIL) filed application under Section 24(3) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘I&B Code’) r/w Rule 11 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016 praying to grant stay on the reconstituted ‘Committee of Creditors’ as notified by the ‘Resolution Professional’ vide notice dated 11th July, 2018.


# 9. From the discussions as made above, while we hold that there is a dispute as to whether Mahal Hotel Private Limited comes within the meaning of ‘Financial Creditor’ or not, we hold that after constitution of the ‘Committee of Creditors’, without its permission, the ‘Resolution Professional’ was not competent to entertain more applications after three months to include one or other person as ‘Financial Creditor’


Further, once a decision was taken by the ‘Committee of Creditors’ to call for a meeting for removal of Mr. Koteswara Rao Karuchola as an ‘Resolution Professional’, it was improper for him to include Mahal Hotel Private Limited as ‘Financial Creditor’ of the Member of the ‘Committee of Creditors’.

 

Disclaimer: The sole purpose of this blog is to create awareness on the subject and must not be used as a guide for taking or recommending any action or decision. A reader must do his own research and seek professional advice if he intends to take any action or decision in the matters covered in this blog.


------------------------------

 


No comments:

Post a Comment

Disclaimer:

The sole purpose of this post is to create awareness on the "IBC - Case Law" and to provide synopsis of the concerned case law, must not be used as a guide for taking or recommending any action or decision. A reader must refer to the full citation of the order & do one's own research and seek professional advice if he intends to take any action or decision in the matters covered in this post.