Gaurav Bhatia Suspended Director Of ... vs Martin Consulting Llc & Ors

Gaurav Bhatia, Suspended Director of Bird Delhi ....Appellant General Aviation Services Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Known as Bird Execujet Airport Services Pvt. Ltd.) Vs.

Martin Consulting LLC & Anr. ...Respondents For Appellant Mr. Abhijeet Sinha, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Virendra Mehta, Mr. Aseem Chaturvedi, Mr. Kunal Mehta, Mr. Milind Jain, Advocates. For Respondents Mr. Sourabh Gupta, Ms. Priya Mittal, Advocates for R1 Mr. Karanveer Jindal, Advocate for IRP

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

15.05.2026: This Appeal has been filed against the order dated

07.11.2025 by which Section 9 application filed by Operational Creditor has

been admitted. In this Appeal, we passed following order on 10.11.2025:-

"10.11.2025 This appeal has been taken on mention made by Ld. counsel for the Appellant challenging the order dated 07.11.2025 passed by NCLT, Chandigarh Bench, Court No.2 in Section 9 application. Section 9 application was filed for an amount of Rs. 54,03,581/- with interest @ 15% per annum. The date of default was mentioned as February, 2019. Application remained pending and came to be admitted on 07.11.2025.

2 Ld. Counsel for the Appellant submits that the Appellant is ready to deposit the amount double to the amount as claimed to show its bonafide. It is submitted that the Appellant is CD which has turnover of more than Rs. 50 crores and it is a running company and on the basis of orders, IRP has issued publication to the website on 07.11.2025 itself.

Ld. Counsel appearing for the IRP submits that the publication was also published in the newspaper on 08.11.2025 i.e. next day.

Let the Appellant deposit amount of Rs. 1,09,10,000/- by two separate bank drafts before the Pay & Accounts Officer, Ministry of Corporate Affairs. during the course of day.

Ld. Counsel for the Appellant further submitted there was pre-existing dispute, regarding reconciliation and liability and the application ought not to have been admitted.

Be as it may be. The Appellant having offered to deposit Rs. 1,09,10,000/- without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the Appellant, we are of the view that the Appellant has made ground for grant of interim relief. Let the Appellant deposit the amount during course of the day.

Respondents are present. No notice needs to be issued.

Both of the Respondents are allowed two weeks' time to file reply. Rejoinder, if any, may be filed within a week.

List this appeal on 10.12.2025.

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1712 of 2025 3

In the meantime, order dated 07.11.2025 shall remain stayed."

2. IRP appears in person who submits that in pursuance of the

publication, no claims have been received.

3. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the Settlement

Agreement has been entered between the parties on 09.05.2026 which has

been brought on record.

4. Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.1 submits that the

Settlement Agreement having entered, CIRP need not be proceeded any

further.

5. Counsel for the Appellant submits that the amount deposited under the

order of this Court dated 10.11.2025 be released in favour of the Respondent

No.1 along with the accrued interest.

6. In the facts of the present case, when no claims have been received in

pursuance on the publication, we are of the view that parties need not be

directed to adopt the route of Section 12A. In the end of justice, we set aside

the impugned order and close the CIRP. Appeal is disposed of accordingly.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) Anjali/md

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1712 of 2025