AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 19
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ORDER These two appeals have been filed by the Personal Guarantors of the Corporate Debtor against the separate orders passed on 16.03.2026 in Section 95 application filed by the IDBI Trustees ship Services Ltd. By orders of the same date Section 95 applications have been admitted. Prior to admission of Section 95 application, RP was appointed who has submitted a report. In the Section 95 petition, no objection or reply was filed by the Personal Guarantor, however, written submission were filed. The Adjudicating Authority after hearing the parties, by order dated 16.03.2026 has admitted the Section 95 applications. 2. Shri Arjun Sheth, learned counsel for the Appellant raises three submissions. Firstly, he submits that there was no w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... which power of attorney was issued to Ms. Gauri Nimkar by the authorised person, hence, there is no flaw or incompetence in filing application by the power of attorney holder. Learned counsel for the Respondent has conceded that the direction in (VI) need to be deleted and amount has to be deposited by the Financial Creditor - IDBI Trusteeship Services Ltd. 4. Learned counsel for the Appellant in support of his submission has relied on judgment of this Tribunal in Palogix Infrastructure Private Limited vs. ICICI Bank Limited, 2017 SCC OnLine NCLAT 266. Learned counsel for the Respondent has relied on judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajendra Narottamdas Sheth vs. Chandra Prakash Jain & Anr., (2022) 5 SCC 600, where the Palogix Infra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cations, plaints, petitions, written statements, vakalatnamas and pleaders as occasion shall require and to make, sign, execute, present a or any other papers expedient or necessary... to be made, signed, executed, presented or filed." 13. NCLAT in its judgment in Palogix Infrastructure held that a "power-of-attorney holder" is not competent to file an application under Section 7 on behalf of the financial creditor. However, NCLAT made certain further observations, as reproduced below: (SCC OnLine NCLAT para 41) "41. Insofar as the present case is concerned, the "Financial Creditor"-Bank has pleaded that by Board's Resolutions dated 30-5-2002 and 30-10- 2009, the Bank authorised its officers to do needful in the legal ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ditor in favour of such officer. In such cases, the corporate debtor cannot take the plea that while the officer has power to sanction the loan, such officer has no power to recover the loan amount or to initiate corporate insolvency resolution process, in spite of default in repayment. We approve the view taken by NCLAT in Palogix Infrastructure³." 5. The present is a case where resolution by the board of directors is on the record and in pursuance of the board resolution, the power of attorney was executed. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in similar facts has already upheld the competence of such power of attorney holder to initiate the proceeding. The reliance of learned counsel for the Appellant in Palogix Infrastructure Private Limit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pellant." The above judgment supports the submission of the Respondent. 7. Further, in so far as submission of the Appellant that there was no written authorisation given by Debenture Holder to the Trustee. There are two reasons not to accept this submission of the Appellant. Firstly, the Appellant choose not to file reply or objection to the Section 95 petition. Had said reply or objection filed, reply would have come on record. Secondly, in Para 7(i) of the order, Clause 15.2 has been extracted, which is as follows: "i) The debenture trustee (applicant) is appointed by the borrower. Clause 15.2 of the irrevocable and personal guarantee deed agreement executed by the applicant with the two personal guarantors, namely Mr Kaml....