Interim Order 3

Order Details: Order Below EX 1
Pdf Text: MHMM180016992018 Summons Cases SS/3252/2017
KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD Vs. GUPTA
SYNTHETIC LTD
IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, FIRST CLASS,
58TH COURT, BANDRA, MUMBAI
ORDER BELOW APPLICATION EXH.28
This is an application for calling upon Interim Resolution
Professional (IRP) appearing on behalf of accused No.1 company to
give certain undertakings as called for by the accused.
2. The Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) has objected the
application vide detailed reply Exh.42.
3. Heard Advocate Kejashri Thakar for the accused and
advocate Shashank holding for Mr. Nikhil Mengde that is Interim
Resolution Professional (IRP).
4. After going through application moved on behalf of accused
No.2 to 6, it apprises that they have misconstrued the provision of
I.B.Code, 2016. There is reason to believe an illogical application
considering various demands put forth by the advocate on behalf of
accused No.2 to 6 who are the then directors of accused No.1 company
or calling upon him to face consequences in the event of default of
payment of an interim compensation etc. It is nothing but indirectly
asking him to face consequences of a criminal trial, if resulted into
conviction.
5. It is crystal clear that the role of IRP contemplated under the
provision of I.B. Code, 2016 is very limited just only as to manage the
assets and liabilities vis-a-vis further administration relating to claims
and debts of a defunct company. His appointment is only made with a
view to restrain the multiplicity of the litigation’s and elucidate the
-- 1 of 3 --
2 Summons Cases SS/3252/2017
Order Below Exh.28
court to administer the justice. His appointment is just to facilitate
Hon’ble National Company Law Tribunal in deciding insolvency
proceedings being expert of the field.
6. From the prayers made in the application, it is clear that the
directors of accused No.1 company intends to play a game of hide and
seek resting behind order of Hon’ble Tribunal to appoint Interim
Resolution Professional (IRP). Neither official liquidator or Interim
Resolution Professional (IRP) is going to suffer substantive sentence in
person, if trial ends in favour of complainant nor law expects to do so.
Therefore, this application may be a good art of advocacy but appears
without legal substance and merits.
7. Basic object of enactment of I.B.Code, 2016 would frustrate,
if such type of applications would be entertained in a criminal
proceeding that too which has time limit for concluding the trial.
Secondly, whatever claims of the directors of accused No.1 company,
they can directly put their grievances with official liquidator or raise
their grievances before the Court of National Company Law Tribunal
(NCLT) in the relevant proceeding. Hence, I pass following order.
ORDER
1. Application is rejected.
2. Order dictated and pronounced in open court.
3. Order be uploaded forthwith on Court Web Portal.
Mumbai, (M. P. Saraf)
Dated : 26.08.2025. Judicial Magistrate(First Class),
58th Court, Bandra, Mumbai.
J.O.Code-MH01362
-- 2 of 3 --
3 Summons Cases SS/3252/2017
Order Below Exh.28
CERTIFICATE
I affirm that the contents of this P.D.F. file Order are same, word to word as per the
original Order.
Name of Stenographer : Mrs. Aditi Ravikiran Dalvi
Court : Judicial Magistrate(First Class), 58th Court, Bandra,
Mumbai.
Dictated in open court on : 26.08.2025.
Transcribed and Typed on : 26.08.2025.
Order printed and Signed on : 26.08.2025.
Order Uploaded on : 26.08.2025.
-- 3 of 3 --