Arpan Maheshkumar Shah Resolution ... vs Committee Of Creditors Omshri ...

IN THE MATTER OF: Arpan Maheshkumar Shah, ...Appellant RP of Omshri Devprocon Ltd. Versus Committee of Creditors ...Respondent Omshri Devprocon Ltd. & Ors.

Present: For Appellant : Mr. Kinshuk Chatterjee, Advocate.

For Respondent :

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

12.11.2025 : I.A. No.5523 of 2025

This is an application praying for condonation of 9 days delay in filing

the appeal. Ground taken in the application is that appellant consulted the

Counsel at New Delhi and arranged the documents sent along with copies of

orders for which some time was lost in transfer the documents. Certified

copy was applied which was received on 18.07.2025. We find cause

sufficient. Delay condoned.

CA (AT) (Ins) No. 1413 of 2025

Heard counsel for the appellant.

2. This appeal has been filed against the order dated 03.07.2025 by

which order Adjudicating Authority has rejected the plan approval

application. Aggrieved by the order RP has filed this appeal. The Adjudicating Authority in the impugned order has noticed that assets which

were shown in the balance sheet of the March 31, 2022 were more than Rs.

137 crores and the current assets were shown Rs. 114 crores and liabilities

have gone from Rs. 103 to 137 crores. These facts have been noticed in

paragraph-13 of the order which is as follows:-

"13. However, on perusal of the additional affidavit filed 16.03.2025 as directed by this Tribunal, it is observed from the balance sheet for the year 31 March 2022 that the CD had total assets of Rs.137,11,44,255 of which other Current assets are shown to be as Rs.114,21,97,846 (which has gone up from Rs.103,00,21,012) and the total liabilities have gone up from Rs.103,53,03,198 to Rs.137,11,44,255 during same period. When the assets are not valued including the Current Assets which have gone up sizeably within 2 years before the CIRP, the RP and the CoC has not provided proper explanation as to how the Resolution Plan can be brought in with huge dues particularly for the Income Tax which is a statutory department having to collect dues amounting to Rs.83,56,59,736 which is mainly pertaining to a demand of Rs.64,52,11,655. We also observe that the Statutory Audit Report and financial statements submitted as part of affidavit as no details are not also available of these huge current assets reflected in balance sheet. The balance sheet has been prepared without revealing details and the valuation report treats the entire assets as NIL."

3. The Adjudicating Authority has further noticed that the total plan

value is Rs.74 lakhs and the assets of the SRA are only Rs.76 lakhs. The

Adjudicating Authority came to the conclusion that balance sheet has been

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1413 of 2025 2 of 4 prepared without revealing details and the valuation reports treat the entire

assets as NIL. The Income-Tax dues have been also noticed more than Rs.

83 crores. The Adjudicating Authority was satisfied that plan is not in

compliance with the provisions and has rejected resolution plan.

4. Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that the plan was approved by

the Committee of Creditors and could not have been rejected, he further

submits that the observation made in the impugned order be not treated

any adverse observation against the appellant.

5. We have considered the submissions of the parties and perused the

records.

6. The Adjudicating Authority after rejecting the plan approval has

directed for liquidation and liquidator has been appointed. It is submitted by

the appellant that liquidation proceedings are going on.

7. After having heard the counsel for the appellant, we are of the view

that Adjudicating Authority has noticed all relevant facts pertaining to the

CD its balance sheets, its assets and has rightly come to the conclusion that

total value of the proposed plan of Rs.74 lakhs and observed that balance

sheet of the corporate debtor has been prepared without revealing details

and the valuation report treat the entire assets as NIL. There was no Section

9 application filed seeking any co-operation or documents, Adjudicating

Authority was not satisfied with the entire process culminating into the

resolution plan, sufficient reasons were given in the impugned order for

rejecting the resolution plan. It is the Resolution Professional who has come

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1413 of 2025 3 of 4 up in this appeal. We thus are of the view no good grounds have been made

out to interfere in the order rejecting the resolution plan, we only observed

that in the liquidation proceedings any eligible person can submit Scheme

for Arrangement as per Regulation 2(B) of Liquidation Regulation, 2016

With the above observations, we dismiss the appeal.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) Harleen/MD

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1413 of 2025 4 of 4