Anuj Sharma Suspended Board Of Director ... vs Pankaj Mahajan And Anr & Ors

IN THE MATTER OF: Anuj Sharma, ...Appellants Suspended Board of Director of VHV Beverages Pvt. Ltd. Versus Pankaj Mahajan & Anr. ...Respondents

Present: For Appellant : Mr. Abhishek Anand, Mr. Karan Kohli, Ms. Palak Kalra and Ms. Ridhima Mehrotra, Advocates. For Respondents : Mr. Hitesh Sachar, Ms. Anju Jain and Mr. Rifat Touhid, Advocates for Liquidator for R3. Mr. Adarsh Tripathi, Mr. Vikram Singh Baid and Mr. Ajitesh Garg, Advocates.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

16.01.2026: I.A. No. 4975 of 2025

This is an application praying for condonation of 15 days delay in filing

the appeal. This appeal has been filed by the Suspended Board of Directors

challenging the order passed dated 21.04.2025 in IA No. 5081 of 2023. An

additional-affidavit has been filed by the appellant in support of the

application wherein paragraph 10.1 appellant has given the sequence of the

events and dates explaining the 15 days delay in filing the appeal. The case of

the appellant is that order dated 21.04.2025 passed in the application

5081/2023 appellant were not party and they were not aware of the order and

they came to know only on 27.05.2025 and thereafter in para 10.1 reasons

have been given for explaining the delay of 15 days.

2. Counsel for the respondent no.2 who has filed the reply to the delay

condonation submits that suspended board of directors were present through

counsel on 07.05.2025 and 20.05.2025 and they cannot be allowed to say

that they were not aware of the proceedings of the order. Counsel for the

appellant submitted that their presence on 07.05.2025 and 20.05.2025 is not

denied but they were present in the application filed under Section 45 of the

IBC and suspended director were not made party in the application they were

not aware of the application or orders or any proceedings therein. It is not

disputed that appellant were not party to the IA 5081/2023. We thus find

sufficient cause shown in the application and additional-affidavit filed by the

appellant explaining the 15 days delay in filing the appeal is condoned. Delay

condoned.

CA (AT)(Ins) No. 1271 of 2025

3. Heard counsel for the appellant, Ld. Counsel appearing for R2 and Ld.

Counsel for the liquidator.

4. This appeal has been filed against the order passed by the Adjudicating

Authority on 21.04.2025 in IA No. 5081 of 2023. IA was filed by the

respondent no.2 who is the Operational Creditor/ Landlord praying for

various reliefs which noticed in para-1. Adjudicating Authority took a view

that RP has already filed an application IA No. 3954 of 2022 hence for the

same purpose two applications cannot be prosecuted. Hence the Adjudicating

Authority closed the IA No. 5081 of 2023 by passing following order:-

"7. Accordingly, the IA- 5081/2023 stands closed.

8. RP is directed to provide the copy of the pending application to the Ld. Counsel for the applicant/landowner, so that they 2 of 3 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1271 of 2025 can take informed the decision and support and assist the court."

Appellant who is the suspended board of director aggrieved by the said order

has come up in this appeal and submits that when the RP had already filed

the application u/s 45 the another application was not maintainable. He

submits that in application under Section 45 can be filed only by the RP and

right to creditors to file the application arises only when no application is filed

by RP or liquidator. He submits that in the present case RP having already

filed an application under Section 45 no liberty ought to have been granted to

the respondent no.2 to support and assist the court. There is no dispute

between the parties with regard to facts and sequence of the event.

5. In the facts of the present case, we are of the view that proper course

open is for the liquidator to file an application for making the respondent no.2

as party to Section 45 application as a proper party which needs to be

considered and decided by the Adjudicating Authority in accordance with law.

6. We are of the view that Adjudicating Authority to take a decision on the

said application giving opportunity to the appellant without being influenced

by any observation made in the impugned order.

With these observations, appeal is disposed of.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) harleen/MD

3 of 3 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1271 of 2025