Tribunal Grants Withdrawal with Liberty to File Fresh Application under IBC Sections The Tribunal granted permission for the withdrawal of the application with liberty to file a fresh application under Sections 43 & 66 of the IBC. The ...
Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
Tribunal Grants Withdrawal with Liberty to File Fresh Application under IBC Sections
The Tribunal granted permission for the withdrawal of the application with liberty to file a fresh application under Sections 43 & 66 of the IBC. The application seeking relief directing suspended directors to hand over books of accounts and assets was disposed of with directions for the Resolution Professional to initiate a criminal case against both suspended directors for failing to provide necessary information.
Issues: 1. Application seeking withdrawal with liberty to file a fresh application under Section 43 & 66 of IBC. 2. Application for relief directing suspended directors to handover books of accounts, assets, and provide clarification.
Issue 1 - Application seeking withdrawal with liberty to file a fresh application under Section 43 & 66 of IBC: The Tribunal granted permission for withdrawal of the application with liberty to file a fresh application under Section 43 & 66 of IBC, considering the submissions made by the counsel for the applicant. The present application, IA/5253/2020, was dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty to file a new application in accordance with the provisions of the law.
Issue 2 - Application for relief directing suspended directors to handover books of accounts, assets, and provide clarification: The applicant sought various reliefs, including directing the suspended directors and management to handover books of accounts, fixed assets, provide clarification on financial transactions, and extend cooperation to the Resolution Professional. The respondent no. 1 cited medical reasons for non-cooperation due to being in a high-risk category for contracting COVID-19 and stated that the required information was under the control of respondent no. 2. The respondent no. 1 argued that the responsibility solely lies with respondent no. 2 for furnishing information and handing over documents. However, the Tribunal held that both respondents, being directors before CIRP initiation, are liable to provide the necessary information. As both failed to do so, the RP was directed to initiate a criminal case against both suspended directors under Section 70 of IBC and other relevant sections of the law. The application was disposed of with this direction.
This detailed analysis of the judgment covers the issues involved comprehensively, highlighting the key arguments and decisions made by the Tribunal regarding the withdrawal of the application and the relief sought against the suspended directors.
Full Summary is available for active users!
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.