Hans Raj Bhogra Authorized ... vs Rajesh Kumar Parakh
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 361 of 2026
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Adjudicating Authority errs in rejecting an application for exclusion of time under the insolvency regime where the period sought to be excluded corresponds to a stretch during which the corporate insolvency resolution process was effectively held in abeyance by a prior order and, subsequently, by the Adjudicating Authority's own order segregating a project from the process; the period between the earlier order and the date of that segregating order is required to be excluded where it was occasioned by a cause beyond the control of the Resolution Professional, and the Adjudicating Authority's erroneous rejection on the ground that the orders were reserved, when they were in fact pronounced in open court, does not withstand that finding.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Hans Raj Bhogra ....Appellant Authorized Representative Class of Unsecured Financial Creditors Allotees in Class Vs.
Rajesh Kumar Parakh ...Respondent For Appellant Mr. Abhijeet Sinha, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Akash Chatterjee, Mr. Saikat Sarkar, Advocates. For Respondent Mr. Abhishek Anand, Ms. Palak Kalra, Mr. Karan Kohli, Advocates.
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
24.02.2026: Heard Learned Counsel for the Appellant and Learned
Counsel for the Resolution Professional.
2. This Appeal has been filed by the Authorised Representative of the Class
of Unsecured Financial Creditors having voting share of 72%. The Appellant is
aggrieved by the order dated 20.02.2026 passed by the Adjudicating Authority
(National Company Law Tribunal) New Delhi, Court-III by which IA No.410 of
2026 praying for exclusion of time from 12.06.2024 till 21.11.2025 has been
rejected.
3. The Application was filed by the Resolution Professional on the basis of
decision of the Committee of Creditors (CoC) seeking exclusion. The
Adjudicating Authority by the impugned order has rejected the exclusion
observing that the CoC resolution to seek exclusion of period of 525 days on 2
the premise that the orders were reserved in IA No.4684 of 2025, however, it
is matter of record that when the matter was listed on 21.11.2025, Counsel
for the parties were heard and order was pronounced in the open court.
4. Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the reasons were given in
Paragraphs 29, 30 and 34 of the Application which are as follows:-
"29. That while the CoC has resolved to proceed with the publication of Form G for three projects of the Corporate Debtor, for the resolution of the project CHD Vann, the Homebuyers being the Financial Creditors of the Corporate Debtor deemed it pertinent to take recourse of amicable settlement of the disputes wherein Roots Developers Private Limited had proposed a Memorandum of Understanding (hereinafter referred to as "MOU") and further were interested in negotiating terms to expedite the completion of the incomplete CHD Vann Project and accordingly, during the course of the 11th Meeting of the CoC, the terms of the MoU floated by Roots Developers Private Limited was placed for deliberation before the CoC members. However, one of the financial Creditors of the Corporate Debtor, being Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited was not agreeable with the financial proposal received by it.
30. That pursuant to the 11th Meeting of the CoC convened by the Applicant, the Authorized Representative of the Homebuyers, vide email dated 21.06.2025 issued by Respondent No. 1, the Applicant herein was apprised of a physical meeting between the representative of Edelweiss and Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 361 of 2026 3
Respondent No. 1 wherein the payout proposal as provided in the MOU was discussed and was mutually revised. The Applicant herein was informed that in terms of the Agreement arrived at between the parties, the payout proposal stood revised to the tune of INR 22.90 Crores payable within 60 days of the segregation of project CHD Vann.
34. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is respectfully submitted that pursuant to the Order dated 24.01.2024 passed by this Hon'ble Adjudicating Authority (Principal Bench) with respect to publication of Form-G, the CIRP of the Corporate Debtor effectively remained at a standstill and the Applicant/Resolution Professional was rendered incapable of proceeding further with the CIRP within the prescribed timelines, for reasons wholly beyond the control of the Applicant. The delay occasioned during this period was attributable to the ongoing efforts to arrive at an amicable settlement for the CHD Vann Project. Now that the settlement terms between Roots Developers Private Limited and the Corporate Debtor have been duly concluded, and this Hon'ble Adjudicating Authority has been pleased to allow the segregation of the CHD Vann Project from the CIRP vide Order dated 21.11.2025, the impediments affecting the progress of the CIRP stand resolved."
5. It is submitted that there was proposal for project-wise resolution and
the application to exclude the project CHD-Vann was allowed only on
21.11.2025, and due to the aforesaid Resolution Professional, Resolution
Professional has made a statement before the Adjudicating Authority on
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 361 of 2026 4
24.01.2024 in IA No.5624 of 2023 and IA No.5878 of 2023 to the following
effect:-
"In view of the multiple issues involved in this application, the RP states that Form-G has not been issued so far and he will await further instructions in the matter."
6. The above statement was made because Form G could not be issued till
the project-wise resolution is not sorted out. Applications were filed with
respect to several projects for exclusion from the CIRP and with regard to the
project CHD-Vann, the application was allowed only on 21.11.2025 and now
the Resolution Professional was to issue Form G for resolution. It is submitted
that the observations of the Adjudicating Authority and the reasons which
have been taken into consideration for rejecting the application in para 5 (xi)
are not the reasons which were claimed before the Adjudicating Authority.
Even if the statement recorded by the Resolution Professional on 24.01.2024
cannot be said to be any kind of stay on the CIRP, however, that was the
reason for CIRP not being proceeded further and when the Adjudicating
Authority itself has excluded one of the project on 21.11.2025, the said period
require exclusion.
7. Counsel for the Resolution Professional has supported the Appeal and
submitted that the application filed for exclusion was on the valid reason as
mentioned in the application.
8. After having heard the Counsel for the parties and perusing the record,
we are of the view that the present is a case, which is insolvency of real estate
company, which has several projects and different orders were passed with Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 361 of 2026 5
regard to segregating the project from CIRP. Last such segregation was done
on 21.11.2025 CHD-Vann hence, the said period is required to be excluded.
We, thus, are of the view that the Adjudicating Authority committed error in
rejecting the application for exclusion. We find sufficient cause made out to
allow IA No.410 of 2026.
9. In result, Appeal is allowed. Order dated 20.02.2026 is set aside and IA
No.410 of 2026 is allowed.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) Anjali/md
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 361 of 2026
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free