Dhanlaxmi Electricals Private Limited vs Hdfc Bank Limited & Ors

Dhanlaxmi Electricals Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellant Vs. 1. HDFC Bank Ltd. ...Respondent No.1

2. CA Dhaval Jitendrakumar Mistry ...Respondent No.2 Interim Resolution Professional

(Arising out of Order dated 26.08.2025 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, Court - IV) in CP (IB)/581(MB)/2024)

For Appellant: Mr. Alok Singh, Mr. Jaivardhan Jeph, Ms. Mridunil Kashyap, Ms. Nitika Jangir, Advocates For Respondent: Mr. Dhruv Gupta, Mr. Rishabh Tehlan, Advocates

JUDGEMENT

Per Justice N. Seshasayee, Member (Judicial)

This appeal is preferred by the CD which challenges the Order of the Adjudicating

Authority admitting the CD to the CIRP. The appeal was filed in the name of the

CD.

2

2. Placing reliance on the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

Nitendra Kumar Tomar, Suspended Director, Ambro Asia Private Limited

Vs. Unox S.P.A. and another [Civil Appeal No.3607 of 2026], the learned

Counsel for the respondent submitted the appeal as framed is not maintainable.

In the fitness of things, the appeal should have been filed by the suspended

directors of the CD and not by the CD, since once the CD is admitted to CIRP,

its Board stands suspended. Secondly, the affidavit filed along with the appeal

shows that the deponent thereof has executed it in Mumbai but it was seen

notarized in Gurugram and there is nothing in that affidavit to indicate that the

deponent had travelled to Gurugram and executed it before the notary. Thirdly,

for instituting this appeal, the appellant has filed a board resolution which is

dated after the date of the impugned Order. This is plainly incompetent, since

the board appears to be in delirium, blissfully unaware of the consequences of

an Order initiating a CIRP. Taking cumulatively and reading them on the plane

of law declared in Nitendra Kumar Tomar judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court, the appeal cannot be entertained.

3. In response, the learned Counsel for the appellant submitted the CD has

already been drawn into CIRP vide an Order in C.P.(IB) 398 of 2023, dated

06.12.2023, and it was reversed by this Tribunal in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins)

No. 22 of 2024 dated 13.03.2024, but that judgement of the NCLAT was reversed

by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.A.12261 of 2024 vide judgement dated

10.12.2025 and confirmed the Order of the Adjudicating Authority. The order

admitting CD to CIRP in C.P.38 of 2023 now having been restored, the 3

subsequent Order of the Adjudicating Authority dated 26.08.2025 which is

sought to be impugned in this appeal cannot be sustained since there can be no

two orders for commencing insolvency resolution process for the same CD.

4. There is merit on the submissions of both the parties. Turning to the

maintainability of the appeal, very evidently the appeal cannot be maintained for

the manner it is framed is not consistent with law. Now, even if the appeal if

found maintainable, yet in view of the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

in C.A.12261 of 2024, it would have become infructuous. So far as the

respondent is concerned, irrespective of the Order that it has secured against

CD for commencing a CIRP against it, given the fact that there has already

commenced another CIRP against the CD, it may now have to prefer a claim

merely. But then that is a different issue. For the present we hold that the

appeal is not maintainable.

5. To conclude, we dismiss the appeal as not maintainable. No costs.

I.A. No.5993 of 2025 is also closed.

[Justice N. Seshasayee] Member (Judicial)

[Arun Baroka] Member (Technical) rs/beena