Back
2020 Supreme(SC) 800
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ARUN MISHRA, B.R. GAVAI, KRISHNA MURARI, JJ.
State Bank of India - Appellant
Versus
M/s Metenere Ltd - Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 2570 of 2020
Decided On : 19-08-2020
For the Appellant :Mr. Tushar Mehta, Ld. S.G., Ms. Misha, Adv., Mr. Anoop Rawat, Adv., Mr. Vaijayant Paliwal, Adv., Ms. Jasveen Kaur, Advocate, Mr. Ankur Mittal, Advocate, Mr. Shardul S. Shroff, AOR.
For the Respondent: Mr. Krishnan Venugopal, Sr. Adv., Mr. Arvind Kumar Gupta, Adv., Ms. Henna George, Adv., Mr. Ravindra Sadanand Chingale, AOR.
Headnote:
Civil Laws – Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Pension – Held, Court is prima facie satisfied that the approach adopted by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (NCLAT) is not correct that merely Resolution Professional who remained in the Service of SBI and is getting pension, was disentitled to be Resolution Professional – Senior counsel have agreed for appointment of new Resolution Professional by NCLT, let new Resolution Professional be appointed by the NCLT forthwith within a week in accordance with the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Court may observe that the change of Resolution Professional shall not reflect adversely upon the integrity of concerned Resolution Professional, who has been replaced – Civil Appeal Disposed of
ORDER :
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length.
2. We are prima facie satisfied that the approach adopted by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (NCLAT) is not correct that merely Resolution Professional who remained in the Service of SBI and is getting pension, was disentitled to be Resolution Professional.
3. However, since Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General as well as Mr. Krishnan Venugopal, learned senior counsel have agreed for appointment of new Resolution Professional by NCLT, let new Resolution Professional be appointed by the NCLT forthwith within a week in accordance with the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
4. We may observe that the change of Resolution Professional shall not reflect adversely upon the integrity of concerned Resolution Professional, who has been replaced.
5. Since the impugned order does not reflect the correct approach, the same shall not be treated as a precedent.
6. Accordingly, the civil appeal is disposed of.
