Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction ... vs Chirag Rajendrakumar Shah

Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. ...Appellant(s)

Versus

Chirag Rejendrakumar Shah ...Respondent(s) Present: For Appellant : Mr. Kaushik Mishra, Mr. Shailesh K. Rajora, Mr. Shivendra Singh, Advocates. For Respondents :

With

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 747 of 2025

IN THE MATTER OF:

Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. ...Appellant(s)

Versus

Chirag Rejendrakumar Shah ...Respondent(s) Present: For Appellant : Mr. Kaushik Mishra, Mr. Shailesh K. Rajora, Mr. Shivendra Singh, Advocates. For Respondents :

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode) 14.05.2025: These two appeals have been filed by the Edelweiss Asset

Reconstruction Company Ltd. challenging the order passed by Adjudicating

Authority dated 02.05.2025 by which adjudicating authority has allowed the

exclusion of 45 days in CIRP and an application filed by the appellant

directing for liquidation has been rejected.

2. The appellant in the CoC has vote share of only 0.17%. Ld. Counsel

for the appellant challenging both the orders submit that there have already

been two exclusions, and one extension and there was no occasion for direct

for exclusion of 45 days and adjudicating authority committed an error in

allowing the exclusion application.

3. Adjudicating Authority in the impugned order has noticed the

decision of different applications and the decision by which the CoC has

resolved to seek exclusion of 45 days which has been allowed by the

impugned order.

4. Ld. Counsel for the appellant has also submitted that the CoC does

not give any reason for allowing the exclusion.

5. We have heard Ld. Counsel for the appellant and perused the

record.

6. The CIRP is run under the decision taken by the CoC and the CoC

had taken a decision with requisites majority to seek exclusion of 45 days.

7. We see no error committed by the adjudicating authority in allowing

the application praying for exclusion of 45 days.

8. Further, application filed by the appellant for directing for

liquidation has rightly been rejected since after allowing the application for

exclusion the CIRP has to proceed. It is submitted by the appellant himself

that Resolution Plans are there for consideration. One plan by the same

person has been submitted. In these proceedings we are not required to

make any observation with regard to any plan submitted in the CIRP.

9. We however are of the view that no error can be found in the order

of adjudicating authority directing for exclusion of 45 days which decision

was taken by the requisites majority of the CoC and the appellant who had

0.17% vote share cannot be allowed to question the said decision.

10. With these observations, both the appeals are dismissed.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Arun Baroka] Member (Technical) sr/nn