Indian Overseas Bank vs Anil Kumar

I.A. No. 1911 of 2026 in Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 2002 of 2025 IN THE MATTER OF:

Indian Overseas Bank, [Acting on Behalf of ...Appellant(s) Stakeholders Consultation Committee of the Corporate Debtor}

Versus

Smt. Meena Kumar (Wife of Late Anil Kumar) ...Respondent(s) (Liquidator of Pearl Vision Pvt. Ltd.) Present: For Appellant : Ms. Payal Golimar, Anjali Jain, Adv. For Respondents : Mr. Milan Singh Negi, Nikhil Kumar Jha, Katyayani, Adv.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode) 24.03.2026: I.A. No. 1911 of 2026 :This is an application praying for

substituting the name of wife of Respondent with liberty to bring other heirs

on record by subsequent application. The application is allowed. Let the wife

of Respondent as prayed in the application be substituted in place of

Respondent. Amended memo is taken on record. Let the appeal be amended

accordingly.

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 2002 of 2025

Heard Ld. Counsel for the Appellant and Respondent.

2. This appeal has been filed against the order dated 06.11.2025 passed

in I.A No. 2469 of 2025. I.A was filed by the Bank with the following prayers:-

"a) Take on record the additional documents and material facts now placed on record by the Applicant, which are demonstrably relevant and material to the just and equitable adjudication of the present matter;

b) Direct that the remuneration of the Respondent (Liquidator) shall be governed in accordance with Regulation 4(2)(b) of the IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016, as adopted by the stakeholders in the Joint Lenders' Meeting dated 05.03.2025, and further endorsed by the earlier resolution of the Committee of Creditors dated 25.03.2019;

c) Modify the order dated 10.03.2025 passed by this Hon'ble Tribunal in IA No. 3075/2023 to the extent to the direction of payment of remuneration of INR 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) to the Respondent, in light of subsequent developments, particularly the release of attached assets and the revised fee structure resolved in the Joint Lenders' Meeting dated 05.03.2025;

d) Declare that no entitlement accrues to the Respondent (Liquidator) for any fixed or monthly fee;

e) Pass such further or other orders and directions as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem just, fit, and appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice and equity."

3. The Adjudicating Authority heard the application and by the impugned

order has dismissed the application by making following observations:-

"3. It is observed that with respect to 'prayer c' of the application, the order dated 10.03.2025 passed by this Adjudicating Authority, in relation to which the modification has been sought has not been enclosed as part of the petition and served on the respondent."

4. The Adjudicating Authority has rejected the application only on the

ground that the order dated 10.03.2025 passed by the Adjudicating Authority

has not been enclosed with the petition.

5. We fail to see any good reason in the above reasoning for rejecting the

application since the order dated 10.03.2025 is part of the proceeding of the

Adjudicating Authority and available in the order sheet, hence, that cannot

be a ground to reject the application.

6. We set aside the order the Adjudicating Authority passed in I.A No. 2469

of 2025 and revive the I.A No. 2469 of 2025 for fresh consideration. The appeal

is disposed of. We are not making any observation on the merits of the case.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Mr. Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) Sheetal/Manu