9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (10) TMI 1456 - Tri - Insolvency and BankruptcyPossession of the property if it was not sold prior to the declaration of moratorium - HELD THAT - Ld. RP submits that as per his information possession of the disputed assets of the applicant in this application is with the buyer as per a proceeding before the Debts Recovery Tribunal filed by the Punjab National Bank (PNB), one of the Financial Creditor in the CoC. Copy has been served upon the erstwhile IRP. However, no copy has been served to the present RP. RP prays time to file reply. In the meanwhile, RP is to take immediate steps so as to get back possession of the property if it was not sold prior to the declaration of moratorium in this case. He is directed to do the needful to safeguard the property of the Corporate Debtor and take appropriate steps in SA No. 152 of 2019 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Kolkata and file its report whether the property was disposed of by the PNB during moratorium or not. List it for further consideration on 04/12/2019.
Issues: Application by director of suspended Board of Directors against RP and Financial Creditor, possession of disputed assets, revival of claim, handover of records by erstwhile IRP.
The judgment pertains to an application filed by a director of the suspended Board of Directors of the Corporate Debtor against the RP and the Financial Creditor. The RP informed the tribunal that the disputed assets are in possession of a buyer due to proceedings before the Debts Recovery Tribunal initiated by a Financial Creditor. The RP requested time to respond and was directed to take immediate steps to secure the assets and report on the status of the property. The tribunal ordered the RP to serve notice on the remaining respondent and file an affidavit of service. In another application, the RP was directed to file a reply affidavit within 7 days and the applicant was instructed to provide all necessary documents to revise the claim if required. The RP highlighted that the erstwhile IRP had not handed over all records as previously directed. The tribunal reiterated the order for the IRP to return all documents to the RP promptly, issuing directions via email. The matter was listed for further consideration on a specified date.
|
