Petition to amend record to include Resolution Professional; compliance with reverification and service of interim application required, matter adjourned.

Petitioner was directed to amend the petition to bring on record the Resolution Professional; the court noted prior extension, filing of a vakalatnama and accepted the petitioners undertaking to amend while refusing to dispense with reverification, so amendment plus reverification must be effected. The petitioner was ordered to serve all respondents with a copy of the interim application; the petitioner undertook to effect service by the specified date, and the court accepted that undertaking. Proceedings were adjourned for further listing because the interim application was not on file or with counsel, and the matter was listed for a later date. No substantive or fiscal determination was made.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petitioner shall amend the petition to bring on record the Resolution Professional of Respondent No.2 and effect reverification; (ii) Whether the petitioner shall serve respondents with a copy of the interim application and by when; (iii) Whether the matter should be adjourned for further listing.

Issue (i): Whether the petitioner shall amend the petition to bring on record the Resolution Professional of Respondent No.2 and effect reverification.

Analysis: The Court records that earlier directions were given to amend the petition to bring on record Vandana Garg as Resolution Professional and that time for amendment had been extended, but amendment was not carried out; however, a vakalatnama has been filed on behalf of the Resolution Professional. The petitioner also gave an undertaking to amend the cause title as regards Respondent No.20 within the week.

Conclusion: The Court accepted the petitioner's undertaking to amend the petition to bring on record the Resolution Professional and did not dispense with reverification.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioner shall serve respondents with a copy of the interim application and by when.

Analysis: An interim application was mentioned but not on file and no copy was available with counsel; the petitioner undertook to serve respondents with a copy by 28th June 2023.

Conclusion: The Court accepted the petitioner's undertaking to serve respondents a copy of the interim application by 28th June 2023.

Issue (iii): Whether the matter should be adjourned for further listing.

Analysis: Proceedings could not continue in the absence of the interim application on file and counsels' copy; the Court therefore listed the matter for a further date.

Conclusion: The Court stood the matter over to 3rd July 2023 for further hearing.

Final Conclusion: The Court directed specific procedural compliance by the petitioner (amendment to bring on record the Resolution Professional, reverification and service of the interim application) and adjourned the matter for further listing; no substantive or fiscal determination was made.

---