Bijender Jain vs Ducturus Resolution Professional ...

IN THE MATTER OF: Rishi Gupta & Anr. ...Appellant Versus Ducturus Resolution Professional Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondent

Present: For Appellant : Mr. Rajat Joneja, Ms. Sakshi Kapoor and Ms. Tina Aneja, Advocates.

For Respondent : Mr. Abhirup Dasgupta, Mr. Rahul Gupta, Mr. Rahul Dadhich and Ms. Vagksha Tiwari, Advocates.

WITH

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1707 of 2025

IN THE MATTER OF: Bijender Jain & Anr. ...Appellant Versus Ducturus Resolution Professional Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondent

Present: For Appellant : Mr. Rajat Joneja, Ms. Sakshi Kapoor and Ms. Tina Aneja, Advocates.

For Respondent : Mr. Abhirup Dasgupta, Mr. Rahul Gupta, Mr. Rahul Dadhich and Ms. Vagksha Tiwari, Advocates.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

10.11.2025 : These appeals have been filed against an order dated

27.10.2025 by which the application I.A. 5098/2025 in IB 445 & 446(ND)/2023 filed by the appellant to recall the order dated 15.09.2025 has

been rejected.

2. Appellant's case is that I.A. No. 3888(ND)/2025, I.A.

No.1153(ND)/2025, I.A. No. 1436(ND)/2025, I.A. No.2154(ND)/2025, I.A. No.

713(ND)/2025 & I.A. No.1564(ND)/2025 which were all avoidance

applications filed by the Resolution Professional (RP) were listed before the

Court on 15.09.2025. A request was made on behalf of the counsel for the

appellant to pass over the matter. Adjudicating authority, however, declined

the request and observed that parties submitted that they do not wish to

argue the matter hence direction was issued for filing the written

submissions. It is submitted that after 15.09.2025, an application was filed

for recall of the order on 08.10.2025 which could be listed only on 27.10.2025

and has been rejected.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that on 15.09.2025, the

appellant never expressed its wish for not arguing the matter rather request

was made to pass over the application which was declined. It is submitted

that at least one opportunity ought to be given to the appellant to make his

submissions on merit of the avoidance application.

4. Learned counsel for the RP does not dispute that request was made by

the appellant to pass over the matter, however, RP was ready to file its written

submissions which he has already filed and appellant has also filed the

written submissions.

5. We have considered the submissions of the counsel for the parties and

perused the records.

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1706 & 1707 of 2025 2 of 5

6. The order dated 15.09.2025 passed in the applications is as follows:

"IA/3888/ND/2025 IA/1153/ND/2025 & IA/ 1436/ND/2025

In these applications, both the parties submitted that they do not wish to argue the matter. Therefore, we direct both the parties to file their respective written submissions along with citations, if any, within a week's time List on 16.10.2025."

IA/2154/ND/2025 IA/713/ND/2025 IA/ 1564/ND/2025

In these applications, both the parties submitted that they do not wish to argue the matter. Therefore, we direct both the parties to file their respective written submissions along with citations, if any, within a week's time List on 16.10.2025."

7. The applications which were filed for recall of the order, appellant in

paragraphs 3, 4 & 5 stated as follows:

"3. It is submitted that on 15.09.2025, when the aforesaid Applications were called out, counsel appearing for the Respondents (Applicants herein) had requested for a short pass over on the ground that the learned Senior Advocate representing the Respondents was on her legs before another Court and was to appear shortly before this Hon'ble Tribunal.

4. Admittedly, the Respondents had already filed detailed replies in all the three Applications, and the matters were right for arguments. Therefore, the request for pass over was made only to enable effective representation of the Respondents by the arguing counsel. However, this Hon'ble Tribunal was pleased to decline the request and, under a mistaken impression that both sides do not want to argue the Applications, proceeded to direct the parties to file written submissions, thereby closing the right of oral hearing.

5. It is submitted that the Applicants would suffer grave prejudice if an opportunity is not granted to

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1706 & 1707 of 2025 3 of 5 advance oral submissions in the said Applications filed by the Resolution Professional, especially when the pleadings were complete and the Applicants were ready and willing to argue the matter."

8. Adjudicating authority has dismissed the application filed by the

appellant observing that "adjudicating authority finds no valid reason to recall

the order dated 15.09.2025".

9. Adjudicating authority in the impugned order have not even adverted

to the pleadings of the appellant that they have only asked for the pass over

and has never expressed their wish to not to argue the matter.

10. When the learned counsel for the RP also submits that appellant has

asked for pass over of the matter on their behalf, we are of the view that

adjudicating authority ought not to have recorded that both the parties do not

wish to argue the matter. It is further not brought on the record that the

appellant has been delaying disposal of the application by seeking repeated

adjournments in the applications which is not the case brought on the record.

11. We thus are of the view that opportunity of making submissions ought

to be given to the appellant. We thus set aside the order passed by the NCLT

on 27.10.2025 rejecting I.A. 5098/2025. The order dated 15.09.2025 is

modified to the extent by deleting the observation "they do not wish to argue

the matter". Both the parties having already filed their written submissions,

no fresh written submissions need to be filed by them.

12. Learned counsel for the parties submit that matter is listed before the

adjudicating authority today post lunch. It shall be open for the adjudicating

authority to give opportunity to both the parties to make submissions and

thereafter decide the application. We make it clear that both parties have

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1706 & 1707 of 2025 4 of 5 submitted that they shall not seek any adjournment before the adjudicating

authority on the above aspect.

With the above directions, the appeal is disposed of accordingly.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) himanshu/md

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1706 & 1707 of 2025 5 of 5