Himanshu Govindram Agarwal vs Team India Managers Limited & Ors
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 882 of 2026
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The reasoning in this order is brief but present. The court holds that a person who was proposed as Interim Resolution Professional, but who was not appointed because the adjudicating authority appointed an IRP from the IBBI Panel List on the consent of the financial creditor, lacks locus to challenge the order making that appointment, so that an appeal by him against such an order is misconceived and liable to be dismissed.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE MATTER OF: Himanshu Govindram Agarwal ...Appellant Versus Team India Managers Ltd. & Anr. ...Respondents
Present: For Appellant : Mr. Anish Agarwal, Mr. Pratik Kumar Chakma, Mr. Abhinav Maurya and Ms. Natasha Bagga, Advocates.
For Respondents : Mr. Apoorv Jha, Advocate.
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
14.05.2026 : This appeal has been filed by the appellant against an order
dated 27.04.2026 passed by the adjudicating authority (National Company
Law Tribunal, Division Bench, Court - I, Ahmedabad Bench), by which the
adjudicating authority has admitted the Section 7 application filed by the
financial creditor and appointed the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP),
who is the respondent herein.
2. The appellant who claimed that his name was proposed by the financial
creditor but he has not been appointed as IRP, aggrieved by the said order
has come up in this appeal.
3. In paragraph 24 of the order of the adjudicating authority, following has
been observed:
"24. Though the Financial Creditor in Part-III of the Form-1 has proposed the name of the Interim Resolution Professional ('IRP') Mr. Himanshu Govindram Agarwal having Registration No. IBBI/IPA- 002/IP-N01286/2023-2024/14389. However, during the course of oral submissions Ld. Counsel for the Applicant/FC agreed and recorded consent if IRP is appointed by this Adjudicating authority from the IBBI Panel List."
4. The observation of the adjudicating authority in paragraph 24 indicates
that during the course of the submission, counsel for the financial creditor
agreed and recorded his consent if IRP is appointed by the adjudicating
authority from the IBBI Panel List.
5. In view of the aforesaid, adjudicating authority appointed the IRP from
the Panel List. Thus, the order was passed appointing the IRP on the consent
given by the financial creditor, which is recorded in paragraph 24 of the
impugned order.
6. We fail to see any jurisdiction or justification on part of the IRP to
challenge the order, by which respondent has been appointed an IRP. We are
of the view that the appeal filed by the appellant is wholly misconceived.
With these observations, the appeal is dismissed.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Indevar Pandey] Member (Technical) himanshu/md
Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 822 of 2026 2 of 2
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