Power Of Attorney Having Authorisation Of Financial Creditor Can File Application U/s 7 IBC: Supreme Court

  • Post category:Daily Judgments
  • Reading time:4 mins read

Power Of Attorney Having Authorisation Of Financial Creditor Can File Application U/s 7 IBC

Case: Rajendra Narottamdas Sheth vs Chandra Prakash Jain

Coram: Justices L. Nageswara Rao, BR Gavai, and BV Nagarathna

Case No.: CA .4222 of 2020

Court Observation: The NCLAT was of the opinion that general authorisation given to an officer of the financial creditor by means of a power of attorney, would not disentitle such officer to act as the authorised representative of the financial creditor while filing an application under Section 7 of the Code, merely because the authorisation was granted through a power of attorney. Moreover, the NCLAT in Palogix Infrastructure (supra) has held that if the officer was authorised to sanction loans and had done so, the application filed under Section 7 of the Code cannot be rejected on the ground that no separate specific authorisation letter has been issued by the financial creditor 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.

“It does not impair Mr. Gupta’s authority to file an application under Section 7 of the Code. It is therefore clear that the application has been filed by an authorised person on behalf of the Financial Creditor and the objection of the Appellants on the maintainability of the application on this ground is untenable.”

[doc id=10585]

Previous Posts

Financial Creditor Has To Prove That Application Filed U/s 7 IBC Is Not Barred By Limitation, But Materials Produced By Corporate Debtor Can Be Examined: Supreme Court

Supreme Court Holds Builder Liable To Compensate Residents Welfare Association For Not Providing Promised Amenities

Order IX Rule 13 CPC: Supreme Court Holds Defendant Who Refused Summons Not Entitled To Seek Setting Aside Of Ex-Parte Decree

Irrigation Department Of State Not An ‘Industrial Establishment’ Under Section 25L Of ID Act: Supreme Court

‘Constitutional’ Power To Punish For Contempt Cannot Be Taken Away Even By Legislative Enactment: Supreme Court

Non-Compoundable Criminal Cases Of Predominantly Private Nature Can Be Quashed U/s 482 CrPC Even If Compromise Is Reached After Conviction: Supreme Court Download Judgement