Aristo Texcon Private Limited vs Santanu Brahma

IN THE MATTER OF: Aristo Texcon Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellant Versus Santanu Brahma Resolution Professional of APL Metals Ltd. ...Respondents Present: For Appellant : Mr. Gopal Jain Sr. Adv. with Mr. Kumar Anurag Singh, Mr. Zain A. Khan, Mr. Mohd. Abran Khan & Ms. Kriti Sharma, Advocates For Respondents : Mr. Gaurav Mitra Sr. Adv. with Mr. Saikat Sarkar, Mr. Sannoyee Chakraborty & Ms. Komal Agarwal, Advocates for R-1/RP Mr. Santosh Kumar Ray, Mr. Ishan Rou Chowdhury, Ms. Ashmita Lohia & Ms. Srishti Mahana, Advocates for Intervener ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

31.08.2026 Heard Shri Gopal Jain, Learned Senior Counsel appearing for

the Appellant, as well as Shri Gaurav Mitra, Learned Senior Counsel appearing for

the Respondent, and perused the records.

2. The instant appeal has been preferred by the Appellant against the

impugned order dated 13.08.2026, whereby the I.A.(I.B.C.)/1093(KB)/2026, moved

by the Appellant before the Learned Adjudicating Authority in

C.P.(IB)/161(KB)/2025, has been disposed of.

3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Appellant submits, at the outset,

that the impugned order has been passed by the Learned Adjudicating Authority in

contravention of relevant sections and Sub-regulation 4A of Regulation 36A of CIRP

regulation, 2016.

4. It is further submitted that once the Learned Adjudicating Authority has

come to the conclusion that Form - G has not been correctly issued, the only

course available to it was to direct for issuance of a fresh Form - G. It is further

1|Page submitted that, even after the passing of the impugned order by the Learned

Adjudicating Authority, an addendum has been issued/published on 22.08.2026,

providing 31.08.2026 as the last date for submission of the Expression of Interest.

Thus, only nine days has been provided for the prospective resolution Applicant to

submit their explanation of interest.

5. While drawing our attention towards the Sub-regulation 4A of Regulation

36A of CIRP Regulation 2016, it is vehemently submitted that it has been clearly

provided therein that any modification to the invitation for Expression of Interest

may be made in the same manner as the initial invitation for Expression Of Interest

was made, thus any addendum to the Form - G could have been issued in the

same manner as the fresh Form-G is required to be issued and, therefore, a clear

15 days' time should have been granted for the submission of the EOI, to the

prospective Resolution Applicants.

6. It is further submitted that the whole insolvency process has been polluted

by not following the CIRP regulations. In this regard the law laid down by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Karad Urban Cooperative Bank Limited v. Swwapnil

Bhingardevay & Ors., (2020) 9 Supreme Court Cases 729, has been relied.

7. Shri Gaurav Mitra, Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondent,

however, submits that in compliance with the impugned order passed by the

Learned Adjudicating Authority, an addendum has already been issued on

22.08.2026, whereby it has been conspicuously shown that the land and property

adjacent to Panskura factory, Purba Midnapur, West Bengal, is mortgaged to

Aristro Texcon the Appellant and charge has been created thereon.

8. It is further submitted that the order passed by the Learned Adjudicating

Authority has been complied in letter and spirit, and the addendum has been

published in a way that the prospective Resolution Applicants would be well aware

about the charge of the Appellant on the said property.

2|Page

9. It is further submitted that, after publishing the addendum in the manner

aforesaid, two EOIs have been received after 22.08.2026, which suggest that those,

who have submitted the EOI's were fully aware about the addendum and about the

charge of the Appellant on the said property.

10. It is also submitted that the impugned order has been passed by the

Learned Adjudicating Authority on 13.08.2026, while the original Form - G was

issued on 08.08.2026, therefore, the Learned Adjudicating Authority was well

aware of the fact that the Form - G has already published, and therefore, a

direction was given only for issuance of an 'addendum' and not for issuance of a

fresh Form - G.

11. We have heard Learned Counsel for the Parties and perused the record. The

only controversy which emerges for our adjudication appears to be that whether by

issuance of addendum in compliance with the impugned order, Regulation 36A,

precisely sub-regulation (4A), has been violated, and whether the Learned

Adjudicating Authority was empowered to pass the impugned order.

12. We notice that by moving the I.A.(I.B.C.)/1093(KB)/2026, the Appellant has

sought following reliefs;

(a) Declaration that the purported Form-G dated August 8, 2026

being Annexure-A-2 herein is illegal, void and of no legal effect

whatsoever;

(b) Declaration that the purported detailed invitation for EOI dated

August 8, 2026 being Annexure-A-3 herein is illegal, void and of

no legal effect whatsoever;

(c) Declaration that all and/or any steps taken by the Respondent

in pursuance of the purported Form-G and the detailed invitation

for EOI are illegal, void and of no legal effect whatsoever;

3|Page

(d) Injunction restraining the Respondent from acting in furtherance

of and/or giving effect to the purported Form-G dated August 8,

2026, pending disposal of the present application;

(e) Injunction restraining the Respondent from acting in furtherance

of and/or giving effect to the purported detailed invitation for EOI

dated August 8, 2026, pending disposal of the present

application;

(f) Ad-interim orders in terms of prayers above;

(g) Costs;

(h) Such other orders and/or further reliefs as this Hon'ble Tribunal

may deem fit and proper.

Perusal of the application would reveal that the Appellant was aggrieved by

not showing his charge over the said property in the Form - G which was issued by

the RP under the directions of the CoC. In this regard we also notice that the

Learned Adjudicating Authority after noticing that the charge with regard to the

Appellant should have been shown in the Form - G directed the RP to issue an

'addendum' to the Form - G, showing clearly the charge of the Appellant over the

said property.

13. We are in agreement with the conclusions drawn by the Learned

Adjudicating Authority that the grievance of the Appellant would be addressed if an

addendum to Form - G is issued, showing in clear terms the charge of the

Appellant over the said property.

14. We are also of the considered view that the second limb of the argument

advanced by Learned Counsel for the Appellant, that the manner in which the

order of the Learned Adjudicating Authority has been complied has violated Sub-

regulation (4A) of Regulation 36A, only talks about the normal course in which the

amendment or modification in the Form - G may be carried out.

4|Page

15. However, when the Learned Adjudicating Authority has directed to perform a

particular task in a particular manner the same must be complied in the same

manner as directed.

16. At the cost of repetition, we recall that, when the impugned order has been

passed, the Learned Adjudicating Authority was well aware about the publication of

Form - G on 08.08.2026, and that is why a conscious decision has been taken by

Learned Adjudicating Authority to publish only the addendum showing clearly the

charge of the Appellant on the said property and in our considered opinion no

illegality has been done by Learned Adjudicating Authority by publication of

addendum, instead of fresh Form - G and an hyper technical objection is being

taken by the Appellant. While the grievance of the Appellant, of not showing his

charge on the said property appears to have been redressed by publication of

addendum.

17. We have also perused the addendum which has been published by the RP

and are satisfied that the manner in which the addendum has been published

satisfies the grievance of the Appellant as any prospective Applicant who may be

intending to submit the Expression of Interest would be well aware about the

existence of charge of Appellant on the said property.

18. Thus, having regard to all the facts and circumstances of this case, we do

not find any merits in the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.

19. No order as to cost. Pending I.A.'s are also disposed of.

[Justice Mohammad Faiz Alam Khan] Member (Judicial)

[Naresh Salecha] Member (Technical) KS/MR

5|Page