Girish Maganlal Limbachiya vs Dharmil R Mehta & Ors

IN THE MATTER OF: Girish Maganlal Limbachiya ...Appellant

Versus

Dharmil R Mеhtа & Ors. ...Respondents

Present: For Appellant: Mr. Arvind Kumar, Ms. Purti Gupta, Ms. Henna George, Ms. Sunidhi Sah, Advocates. For Respondents: Mr. Kapil Prakash Shah, Advocates for R-1 to 5.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode) 18.07.2025: Heard learned counsel for the Appellant as well as learned

counsel appearing for the Financial Creditor (Respondent No.1 to 5). This

Appeal has been filed against order dated 26.06.2025 passed on an

application filed by the Financial Creditor, admitting insolvency proceeding

against the Corporate Debtor under Section 7.

2. The Appellant's case in this appal is that in Part IV of the application,

the Financial Creditor had claimed total amount of Rs.1,60,00,000/- toward

principal with interest totalling to Rs.2,43,97,659/-. It is submitted that there

was no written agreement between the parties to pay interest and Appellant

during pendency of the proceeding has offered to pay entire amount as well

as interest i.e. Rs.2,43,97,659/-, which fact has been noticed by the

Adjudicating Authority in Para 21 of the impugned order. It is submitted that

the Financial Creditor refused to accept the amount. It is submitted that the

amount was offered to be paid by cheques payable within 9 months which

Cont'd.../ 2

was refused by the Financial Creditor without giving any valid reason, hence,

the Adjudicating Authority committed error in admitting Section 7

application.

3. When this appeal was taken, learned counsel for the Appellant

submitted that the Appellant is ready to hand over the bank draft for entire

amount claimed in Part IV along with the interest totalling to

Rs.2,62,00,000/-. We passed following order on 10.07.2025:

"O R D E R (Hybrid Mode)

10.07.2025: Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant is ready to hand over the bank draft and entire amount claimed in Part IV along with the interest totalling to Rs.2,62,00,000/-.

2. It is submitted that appellant had offered before the adjudicating authority which was not accepted, however, they are ready to pay the entire amount by bank draft or by R.T.G.S to the operational creditor within a week.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that he shall intimate the bank details by tomorrow.

4. In view of the aforesaid, we direct that no further steps shall be taken in pursuance of the impugned order dated 26.06.2025 passed by the NCLT, Mumbai Bench, Court - I.

List this appeal on 18th July, 2025."

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.942 of 2025 3

4. When today appeal was taken, learned counsel for the Financial

Creditor submits that the amount has been received totalling to

Rs.2,62,00,000/- by Bank Draft/ RTGS. Learned counsel for the Financial

Creditor submits that the Appellant has not given TDS Certificate which is

required to be given. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that TDS

Certificate will be given in due course to the Financial Creditor.

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

and perused the record.

6. In the facts of the present case, when Appellant has already offered the

entire amount claimed in Part IV, which was refused to be accepted by the

Financial Creditor before the Adjudicating Authority, which during pendency

of the appeal has already been accepted and Financial Creditor has received

a total amount of Rs.2,62,00,000/-, we are of the view that present is not a

case for initiating Section 7 proceeding against the Corporate Debtor. We,

thus, close the CIRP. Appeal is disposed of accordingly.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) Archana/nn

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.942 of 2025