https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=429369 Central Bank of India filed an application under Section 95 of IBC, 2016 against a Personal Guarantor and Corporate Debtor to initiate the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process. The Tribunal appointed Mr. Madasa Kumar as the Insolvency Resolution Professional. The Tribunal clarified the rights of parties involved, stating that Respondents do not have a right of audience before the IRP appointment. It was held that notice before IRP appointment is not mandatory, citing the Lalit Kumar Jain case. Mr. Madasa Kumar was directed to submit a report within 10 days. The judgment emphasizes procedural compliance with IBC, 2016. en-us Mon, 10 Oct 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 23 Oct 2022 17:04:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=429369 Central Bank of India filed an application under Section 95 of IBC, 2016 against a Personal Guarantor and Corporate Debtor to initiate the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process. The Tribunal appointed Mr. Madasa Kumar as the Insolvency Resolution Professional. The Tribunal clarified the rights of parties involved, stating that Respondents do not have a right of audience before the IRP appointment. It was held that notice before IRP appointment is not mandatory, citing the Lalit Kumar Jain case. Mr. Madasa Kumar was directed to submit a report within 10 days. The judgment emphasizes procedural compliance with IBC, 2016. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Mon, 10 Oct 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=429369