TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 1148
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ut of two separate orders of the Adjudicating Authority dated 17.04. 2025 in I.A. No. 337 of 2025 in CP (IB) No. 14 of 2024 and I.A. No. 336 of 2025 in CP (IB) No. 13 of 2024. Vide these Orders, the separate petitions which the appellants had filed under Section 94 IBC were dismissed. 2. Both the cases involve a common issue both on facts and law. The appellants stood as personal guarantors for a loan advanced by the first respondent to the Corporate Debtor. Now, the following facts, which are common in both the cases and relevant for the current purpose, are stated as below: a) On 04.10.2023 both the appellants had filed their separate petitions under section 94 IBC. b) On 16.01.2024 the matter came to be posted before....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ve now preferred the present set of appeals. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted: a) The Adjudicating Authority ought not to have dismissed the petitions filed under Sec. 94 IBC without receiving the report of the RP as mandated in Section 99 IBC. Indeed, the financial creditor has filed it I.A No. 337 of 2025 and 336 of 2025 in the two petitions which the appellants have filed inter alia only for a direction to the RP to file his report under Sec. 99 IBC. Unless RP submits his report, the Adjudicating Authority cannot take take a decision under Sec. 100 IBC, and the decision to dismiss the petitions under Sec.94 without the report of the RP does not fit in with the scheme of the IBC. b) At any rate the Adjudic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and Others v. Bar Council of Kerala and Others [(1999) 3 SCC 422], Glas Trust Company LLC v. Byju Raveendran and Others [Civil Appeal No.9986 of 2024 dated October 23, 2024] and Report of the Bankruptcy Law Reforms Committee (November 2015) headed by the Chairperson, Dr. T.K. Viswanathan. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Financial Creditor, the first respondent in both the appeals, submitted that failure of the appellants to supply the copies of their respective petitions on the RP is not just a procedural lapse, since they have secured to themselves a procedural advantage of moratorium for about 15 months. And if the appellants are allowed to cure their failure now and allowed to continue their petitions, then it would confer ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a valiant effort to impress upon this Tribunal that the appellants had bonafide believed that the Registry of the NCLT would serve these copies on the RP (since the RP is an appointee of the Adjudicating Authority). It appears that no such practice has evolved as contended by the appellant in working a nascent legislation which the IBC is. But, the fact remains that the appellants have been positively directed by the Adjudicating Authority to serve copies of their respective petitions on the RP. Where then is the space for any entertaining any bonafide belief contrary to the positive Orders of the tribunal? 8. This Tribunal is conscious that the procedural lapse should not ordinarily be allowed to have consequences which may have penalis....