TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) whether the Section 95 application filed by the debenture trustee through its authorised officer was competent and maintainable; (ii) whether the direction requiring the personal guarantors to deposit Rs. 2 lakhs could be sustained.
Issue (i): whether the Section 95 application filed by the debenture trustee through its authorised officer was competent and maintainable.
Analysis: The order records that a board resolution was already on record and, pursuant to it, the power of attorney was executed in favour of the officer who filed the application. The reasoning relies on the principle that a general authorisation for conducting legal proceedings is sufficient, and the mere use of a power of attorney does not invalidate the filing where authority is otherwise established. The absence of a reply or objection before the Adjudicating Authority, coupled with the contractual clause recognising the debenture trustee's role, also supported the conclusion that the challenge to authorisation could not succeed.
Conclusion: The application was held to be competently filed and the challenge to maintainability on the ground of lack of authorisation was rejected.
Issue (ii): whether the direction requiring the personal guarantors to deposit Rs. 2 lakhs could be sustained.
Analysis: The respondent conceded that the direction was not liable to stand against the personal guarantors and that, if any deposit was to be made, it had to be made by the financial creditor. In consequence, the impugned direction in that part was deleted and replaced by a direction against the financial creditor.
Conclusion: The deposit direction against the personal guarantors was set aside and the corresponding obligation was shifted to the financial creditor.
Final Conclusion: The appeals failed on the challenge to the competence of filing, but succeeded to the limited extent of deletion of the deposit direction, and the impugned order stood modified accordingly.
Ratio Decidendi: A filing instituted pursuant to a board resolution and an accompanying power of attorney or general authorisation is competent, and a specific challenge to authorisation will not succeed where authority is otherwise established on record.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
