Anuj Goyal vs Rishabh Chand Lodha & Ors

Anuj Goyal ...Appellant(s)

Versus

Rishabh Chand Lodha & Ors. ...Respondent(s) Present: For Appellant(s) : Ms. Nattasha Garg, Ms. Liza Arora, Advocates. For : Mr. Rachit Mittal, Mr. Abhishek Devgan, Mr. Vishal Respondent(s) Hirawat, Advocates for R-1/RP. Mr. Prakhar Mithal, Ms. Ritika Agarwal, Advocates for R-3,4 &7. Mr. Chitranshul A. Sinha, Mr. Shivam Shorewala, Ms. Rakshita Bhargava, Ms. Esha Sharma, Mr. Mrinal Harsh Vardhan, Ms. Rituparna Patra, Advocates for SRA. Ms. Nishi Chaudhary, Mr. Yashartha Gupta, Mr. Mayuresh Rishabh, Advocates for UBI

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode) 07.10.2026: IA No. 7060 of 2026- We have heard Ld. Counsel for the

Appellant as well as Ld. Counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 1, 3, 4, 7

and 8.

2. The instant application has been moved by the Appellant/Applicant

with regard to the following prayers:

"a) Stay the consideration and approval of I.A. (Plan) No. 20 of 2025, pending before the Hon'ble National Company Law Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in C.P. (IB) No. 804/ND/2020, during the pendency of the present Appeal

b) Permit the Appellant to deposit 25% of the amount offered under its Resolution Plan before this Hon'ble Tribunal or as directed by the by this Hon'ble Co;

2 c) Direct that the Appellant's Resolution Plan be placed before the CoC for fresh consideration and re-voting, in accordance with law, so as to rectify the irregularity in the earlier voting process;

d) Pass such other and further order(s) as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case".

3. Ld. Counsel for the appellant at the outset submits that the plan

approval applications i.e. I.A. (Plan) No. 20 of 2025, is pending for

consideration and is listed before the Ld. Adjudicating Authority on

09.10.2026 therefore an urgency has arisen in this appeal and therefore the

prayers sought for by the appellant be granted.

4. It is further submitted that only on the issue of net worth which has

been misrepresented by the RP to the CoC the plan of the appellant has not

been considered.

5. It is vehemently submitted that if the plan, wrongly approved by the

CoC is further approved by the Adjudicating Authority the applicant would

face irreparable loss and the consequences could not be reversed.

6. Ld. Counsel appearing for the Respondents including the RP

vehemently submits that the CoC in its commercial wisdom has taken a

decision not to approve the plan of the applicant/appellant and in any case

the prayer (b) could not be acceded for the reason that in case the prayer of

the appellant is accepted then every PRA whose plan has not been accepted

would come before this Hon'ble Tribunal.

7. It is further submitted that the appellant has not any locus also and

even if the plan approval application moved by the RP is approved by the Ld. 3

Adjudicating Authority, the appellant would have the remedy to challenge the

said order by filing an appeal.

8. Lastly it is submitted that the objection filed by the appellant before the

Ld. Adjudicating Authority has been rejected by passing a reasoned order and

therefore the appellant is not entitled for any interim relief.

9. Having heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and having perused the

record, we are prima facie of the view that the CoC has taken a decision in its

commercial wisdom not to approve the plan submitted by the

applicant/appellant. The grounds on the basis of which the appeal has been

filed would be considered at the time of final disposal of the appeal. However,

as of now we are not finding any good ground to grant the prayers sought for

by the applicant/appellant. The Appellant is a PRA whose plan has not been

accepted by the CoC and Balance of Convenience is not in its favour, nor he

is going to face irreparable loss by non-grant of interim stay. This Appellate

Tribunal is also required to see the comparative hardship which may arise to

the other stakeholders, in case prayers sought by the Appellant are granted.

10. Thus for the reasons given herein before we do not find any merit in

this application and the same is hereby dismissed.

11. However, we make it clear that on the next date of listing we will make

all our efforts to dispose of this appeal and we also request the Ld. Counsel

for the parties to co-operate and no adjournment in this regard would be

granted to the either party on the next date of listing. 4

12. We also grant liberty to Counsel for the parties to mention the appeal

which is already listed on 26.10.2026 to be taken up out of turn.

[Justice Mohammad Faiz Alam Khan] Member (Judicial)

[Naresh Salecha] Member (Technical) sr/kam