JUDGMENT

(Hybrid Mode)

[Oral Judgment: Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma, Member (Judicial)]

These appeals were elaborately heard at the Admission Stage itself.

The Appellant, in the instant company appeals, who happens to be the personal guarantor, has questioned the propriety of the Impugned Order dated 06.11.2024, as rendered in IA No. 447/2024 in CP (IB) No. 15/BB/2023, which is under challenge in Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 29/2025

2. In the other connected company appeal, that is Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 34/2025, the Appellant who happens to be a personal guarantor, questions the propriety of the Impugned Order dated 06.11.2024 as rendered in IA No. 445/2024 in CP(IB)No.14/BB/2023.

3. The Ld. Senior Counsel for the Appellant in both these appeals, has confined his argument from a very limited perspective, as to whether at the stage of considering the report submitted by the Resolution Professional under Section 99(7) of the I & B Code, 2016, an elaborate hearing is required to be considered and recorded by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority, before passing an order under Section 100 of the I & B Code, 2016, admitting an application preferred under Section 95 of the Code for