Indo Sprits vs Shailesh Chandra Ojha And Other

IN THE MATTER OF: Indo Sprits ...Appellant(s)

Versus

Shailesh Chandra Ojha & Anr. ...Respondent(s)

Present: For Appellant : Mr. Karan Gandhi and Mr. Sikhar Tiwari, Advocates.

For Respondents : Mr. Shivam Gautam, Advocate for R1.

Mr. Mohd. Nazim Khan and Adv. Saba Ahmad, Advocates for Liquidator i.e. R2.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

15.12.2025 This appeal has been filed against an order dated

16.10.2025 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Principal Bench,

New Delhi by which the Adjudicating Authority, while directing the liquidation

of the Corporate Debtor, has appointed one Shri Mohd. Nazim Khan as the

Liquidator. The appeal was filed by the CoC of the Corporate Debtor

challenging the order in so far as it appoints the Liquidator. This Tribunal on

30.10.2025, while issuing the notice, made the following order:

"30.10.2025 Learned counsel for the appellant submits that this appeal is filed limited to the extent where adjudicating authority has appointed R- 2 as a liquidator, whereas, the CoC has proposed R-1 as liquidator. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the issue is fully covered by the judgment of this Tribunal in the matter of 'Manish Jaju, Erstwhile RP of Rajesh Landmark Projects Pvt. Ltd.' Vs. 'The Committee of Creditors of Rajesh Landmark Projects Pvt. Ltd. Through Asset Care & Reconstruction Enterprise Ltd. & Anr.' in Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1165/2025 decided on 18.09.2025. 3. Learned counsel for the R-1 accepts notice. Issue notice to R-2. Appellant to provide mobile Nos./e-mail address of the respondent No. 2. Notice be issued through e-mail or any other available mode. Requisites along with process fee be filed within two days. 4. Let reply be filed within two weeks. Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1647 of 2025 2 of 2 List this appeal on 08th December, 2025. In the meantime, the impugned order insofar as it appoints R-2 shall remain stayed. Looking to the nature of the dispute, appeal itself may be disposed of on the next date."

Ld. Counsel for the Respondents No.1 & 2 both have appeared. Ld.

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 submits that he has no objection, if, order

is set aside. Respondent No.2 appearing in Person submits that he incurred

the certain expanses, details of which he shall give to the Liquidator. The facts

of the case are fully covered by the Judgment of this Tribunal in CA (AT) (Ins.)

No. 1165 of 2025, decided on 18.09.2025. The order does not indicate any

reason for not appointing the Resolution Professional as Liquidator.

We, thus, modify the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority dated

16.10.2025 by deleting the direction in Para 16(3) for appointment of Mr.

Mohd. Nazim Khan, we direct the Resolution Professional shall work as the

Liquidator. Mr. Mohd. Nazim Khan may give the details along with the

necessary proof to the present Liquidator, who shall take steps in accordance

with law.

2 of 3 The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) Abhishek/md

3 of 3