Chandresh Jajoo vs Vikas Garg

[Arising out of the Impugned Order dated 09.10.2025 passed by the Adjudicating Authority, National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi Bench in I.A. No. 3565 of 2022 in C.P. (IB) No. 900(ND)/2020] In the matter of: CHANDRESH JAJOO R/O Flat No. 1001, 10th Floor Tower - 2 Pryramid Urban Homes, Sector - 67A, Gurgaon - 122 .... Appellant Versus

VIKAS GARG, LIQUIDATOR M/s HEMA ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES LTD. 808, 8th Floor, Arunanchal Building, 19, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi - 110001 Email: CIRP.HEMAENGINEERING@GMAIL.COM .... Respondent

Present:

For Appellant : Mr. Krishnendu Datta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vikas Dutta, Mr. Siddharth Silwal, Ms. Shivani Sharma, Mr. Yash Tandon, Mr. Harshit Chaudhary, Advocates.

For Respondent : Mr. Vishal Ganda, Ms. Charmi Khurana, Mr. Aarush Jenis, Advocates with Mr. Vikas Garg, Liquidator in person.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

Per: Barun Mitra, Member (Technical)

The present appeal filed under Section 61 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Code 2016 ('IBC' in short) by the Appellant arises out of the Order dated

09.10.2025 (hereinafter referred to as 'Impugned Order') passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi Bench-III)

in I.A. No. 3565/2022 in C.P. (IB) No. 900(ND)/2020. By the impugned order,

the Adjudicating Authority has dismissed the I.A. No. 3565 of 2022. Aggrieved

by the impugned order, the present appeal has been preferred by the Appellant-

suspended Director of the Corporate Debtor-M/s Hema Engineering Industries

Ltd. which was admitted into insolvency on 05.04.2021.

2. Making out the factual matrix of the case, submission was made by Shri

Krishnendu Dutta, Ld. Sr. Counsel for Appellant that the Interim Resolution

Professional who was later confirmed as the Resolution Professional ("RP" in

short) has filed few avoidance applications between January 2022 and April 2022

on the strength of report submitted by the Transaction Auditor dated

08.12.2021. It was contended that these avoidance applications were submitted

beyond the statutory time-lines prescribed under Regulation 35A of the IBBI

(Regulation Process for Corporate Person) Regulation, 2016 which mandates the

RP to form an opinion within 75 days of insolvency commencement date and

make a determination thereof within 115 days and filing of the applications

within 135 days. It was submitted that the avoidance applications were not only

filed belatedly but submitted without the Respondent-RP having independently

formed an opinion and without having made a determination of opinion thereon.

The Appellant had therefore filed IA No. 3565 of 2022 seeking dismissal of the

avoidance applications and for preventing the RP from moving similar

applications. The Adjudicating Authority vide the impugned order has

erroneously dismissed IA No. 3565 of 2022 and listed the avoidance applications

for its consideration.

Page 2 of 5 Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1713 of 2025

3. Assailing the impugned order, the Ld. Counsel for the Appellant submitted

that they would not like to press the ground of belated filing of the avoidance

applications since it is well settled that the prescribed time-lines under

Regulation 35A are directory and not mandatory in nature. However, where the

Adjudicating Authority had erred is that it glossed over the imperative need for

satisfying itself that the RP had filed these avoidance applications only after

having formed an opinion and made due determination with respect to the

preferential, undervalued, extortionate and fraudulent transactions before filing

these PUFE applications. It was vehemently contended that the RP could not

have possibly formed an opinion with due application of mind since the RP had

claimed the date of forming opinion to be 13.06.2021 and the date of

determination of opinion to be 22.06.2021 while by his own admission the RP

had access to relevant ERP software/accounting data of the Corporate Debtor

for making an independent analysis only on 28.06.2021 which date was

subsequent to the formation and determination of opinion. The Adjudicating

Authority while rejecting IA No 3565 of 2022 has not returned any findings on

whether the RP had applied his mind on the basis of adequate material available

before it to form an opinion followed by a determination thereon whether the

Corporate Debtor had been subjected to PUFE transactions. It was therefore

contended that the Adjudicating Authority wrongly dismissed IA No. 3565 of

2022 and permitting the RP (now as the Liquidator) to pursue the avoidance

applications. It was vehemently contended, that in the first place, the proper

formation and determination of opinion by the RP needs to ascertained

Page 3 of 5 Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1713 of 2025 separately by the Adjudicating Authority before taking up the avoidance

applications and hence the present appeal.

4. Refuting the contentions of the Appellant, it was contended by Shri Vishal

Ganda, Ld. Counsel for the Respondent that the RP after duly forming an

opinion, basis available inputs with regard to PUFE transactions, had circulated

the same on 13.06.2021 as part of agenda for discussion in the second CoC

meeting on 16.06.2021. The RP had also completed his determination of opinion

by 22.06.2021. It was vehemently contended that the RP was compelled to form

and determine his opinion on the basis of available inputs and surrounding

circumstances as the suspended management of the Corporate Debtor was not

co-operating in readily providing the information/documents etc. to the

Respondent-RP which is substantiated by the fact that the RP had filed a Section

19(2) application.

5. We have heard the Ld. Counsels of both the parties and perused the

records carefully.

6. We are not inclined to agree with the Appellant that the Adjudicating

Authority must first decide whether there was any material for the RP to form

and determine his opinion before entertaining the avoidance applications. We

are of the considered view that the issue of formation of opinion and

determination of opinion on PUFE transactions cannot be examined at the

threshold level on a stand-alone basis dehors the avoidance applications. Since

the avoidance applications are still pending consideration of the Adjudicating

Authority, we do not find that any substantial purpose will be served in

entertaining this appeal. The appeal is disposed of with liberty to the Appellant Page 4 of 5 Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1713 of 2025 to advance their submissions and raise all issues including the aspects of

formation and determination of opinion by the RP in respect of the avoidance

applications which are already under the consideration of the Adjudicating

Authority.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) Place: New Delhi Date: 12.02.2026

Abdul

Page 5 of 5 Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1713 of 2025