Ashok Tiwari vs Mukesh Kumar Grover

IN THE MATTER OF: Mukesh Kumar Grover, ...Appellant RP of Vayam Technologies Ltd.

Versus

---- ...Respondent

Present: For Appellant : Mr. Rachit Mittal, Mr. Yashraj Singh, Mr. Parish Mishra, Mr. Kanishk Raj, Mr. Adarsh Srivastava and Mr. Abhishek Sinha, Advocates. For Respondent :

With

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1493 of 2025

IN THE MATTER OF: Ashok Tiwari ...Appellant

Versus

Mukesh Kumar Grover, RP of Vayam Technologies Ltd. ...Respondent

Present: For Appellant : Mr. Abhijeet Sinha, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Shashwat Anand, Mr. Gunjesh Ranjan, Mr. Rishabh Kumar, Advocates. For Respondents : Mr. Rachit Mittal, Mr. Yashraj Singh, Mr. Parish Mishra, Mr. Kanishk Raj, Mr. Adarsh Srivastava and Mr. Abhishek Sinha, Advocates.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

25.09.2025: These two appeals have been filed against order dated

21.08.2025 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law

Cont'd.../ Tribunal), New Delhi Bench, Court II by which I.A. No.4077/ND/2025 filed

by the Resolution Professional has been allowed and disposed of. The

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.1494 of 2025 has been filed by the Resolution

Professional and Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.1493 of 2025 has been filed

by the Promoter of the Corporate Debtor. In Paragraph 5 of the impugned

order following has been directed:

"5. In view of the averments made in paras nos. 7 to 9 of LA we exclude the period from 25.03.2022 to 21.07.2025, except the period from 20.08.2024 to 28.05.2025, from the period of CIRP."

2. We have heard Shri Rachit Mittal, learned counsel appearing for the

Resolution Professional and Shri Abhijeet Sinha, learned senior counsel

appearing for the Promoter of the Corporate Debtor. Learned counsel for the

Resolution Professional submits that the CoC itself had authorised the

Resolution Professional to file Exclusion Application, hence, CoC is not

opposing prayers made by the Resolution Professional.

3. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the period which has

not been permitted to be excluded from 20.08.2024 to 28.05.2025 i.e. 281

days was period during which the CIRP could not proceed on account of

various orders passed by the Adjudicating Authority and this Tribunal also.

The Appellant (in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.1494 of 2025) in page 2 of

the synopsis has given details of the application and various orders, which is

as follows:

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1493 & 1494 of 2025 2 of 6 "On 20.08.2024, one Application bearing number IA- 3167 of /2024 was listed which was filed by Canara Bank which the inter alia prayer that-

"b. Direct the Respondent to verify the claims and the CoC in accordance with law by assigning the Applicants voting rights in proportion to their admitted claims; and

c. Direct the Respondent not to call for any further meeting of the CoC till the final disposal of present application;

In view of the Application preferred by the Canara Bank, the Ld. Counsel appearing for the erstwhile RP gave an undertaking on 20.08.2024, that the CoC would not take any decisions until verification of claims. In view of the aforesaid undertaking, the Application of Canara Bank was disposed of.

It is submitted that, in the meantime, on 24.09.2025, an Application being IA-4742/ND/2024 was filed by Mr. Ashok Tiwari, a member of the suspended Board of the Corporate Debtor, challenging the constitution of the CoC. In the said Application, it has been contended that the consortium members led by Canara Bank are not 'Financial Creditors but shareholders, and the matter is presently pending adjudication before the Hon'ble NCLT"

During the pendency of the IA 4742/ND/2024 the erstwhile RP had preferred an Application bearing no. IA-880/2025, in which Hon'ble Adjudicating Authority vide its order dated 21.02.2025 was pleased to pass the following directions:

"It is clarified that during the pendency of IA-

4742/2024 which is listed on 25.03.2025. The

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1493 & 1494 of 2025 3 of 6 voting of any agenda item may be conducted during the meeting of CoC. but the decision taken would be implemented after obtaining leave of this Tribunal."

The aforesaid reflects that though CoC was eligible to vote but none of its decision could have been implemented without leave of the Hon'ble Tribunal the aforesaid reflects that there was a restriction in implementing the decision of CoC.

Thereafter, the Resolution Professional was replaced by CoC and an Application bearing no. 2045 of 2025 was filed by the CoC for replacing the Resolution Professional. The same was allowed by Hon'ble NCLT vide order dated 02.05.2025.

It is pertinent to mention that the order dated 02.05.2025 passed by Hon'ble NCLT whereby RP was replaced was challenged by Sh. Ashok Tiwari, member of suspended Board in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 704 of 2025, which is pending adjudication"

4. Learned counsel for the Resolution Professional submits that in the

application which was filed, details of orders passed by NCLT and NCLAT were

mentioned giving the relevant period, which chart has also been extracted by

the Adjudicating Authority in Para 3 of the impugned order.

5. The period which was included in the exclusion being period from

20.08.2024 to 28.05.2025 is also covered in the chart and has pleaded in the

appeal that due to orders passed by the Adjudicating Authority and

undertaking given by the Resolution Professional, the CIRP process could not

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1493 & 1494 of 2025 4 of 6 proceed and finalized. Several litigations which have been noticed indicates

that the CIRP was affected due to the orders passed by the Adjudicating

Authority and this Tribunal. We are of the view that the Adjudicating

Authority ought not to have excepted period from 20.08.2025 to 28.05.2025

and exclusion for period from 25.03.2022 to 21.07.2025 ought to have been

granted.

6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the Resolution Professional that

the CoC had authorised the Resolution Profession to file exclusion application

and CoC has also authorised the Resolution Profession to file appeal.

7. From the facts as noted above, it is clear that during the period

20.08.2024 to 28.05.2025 although the CIRP was continuing but there were

directions of the Adjudicating Authority and statement given by the

Resolution Professional that CoC would not take any decisions until

verification of claims and further Adjudicating Authority has passed an order

on 21.02.2025 that voting of any agenda item may be conducted during the

meeting of CoC, but the decision taken wold be implemented after obtaining

leave of the Court. The cumulative facts indicate that the CIRP was affected

by orders passed by the Adjudicating Authority. During the aforesaid period

also the Resolution Professional was replaced and new Resolution

Professional was appointed. Dispute with respect to replacement of

Resolution Professional and appointment of new Resolution Professional also

affected the conduct of the CIRP.

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1493 & 1494 of 2025 5 of 6

8. We, thus, are satisfied that period from 20.08.2024 to 28.05.2025 was

also required to be excluded and the Adjudicating Authority ought not to have

been excepted the said period from exclusion as allowed by the Adjudicating

Authority. We affirm the exclusion granted by the Adjudicating Authority

from 25.03.2022 to 21.07.2025. We are of the view that the orders passed by

the Adjudicating Authority need to be modified. Para 5 of the impugned order

is modified to be extent that exclusion is allowed from 25.03.2022 to

21.07.2025 from the period of CIRP without excepting period from 20.08.2024

to 28.05.2025. The result is that entire period from 25.03.2022 to 21.07.2025

is stand excluded. Both the Appeals are disposed of accordingly.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) Archana/nn

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1493 & 1494 of 2025 6 of 6