Jaishree vs Sandeep Kumar Bhatt (Resolution ...

In the matter of: Hari Singh Thakur ....Appellant Vs. Sandeep Kumar Bhatt (RP) & Anr. ...Respondents For Appellant Mr. Manoj Kumar Garg, Mr. Pulkit Atal, Advocates. For Respondents Mr. Ashish Verma, Ms. Salonee Keshwani, Advocates for Bank of Baroda with Soumya Garg Manager-Law Mr. Abhindra Maheshwari, Advocate for RP CMA SK Bhatt, RP CMA Kamal Deep Tyagi, Advocate for R1

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 733 of 2024

In the matter of: Jaishree ....Appellant Vs. Sandeep Kumar Bhatt (RP) & Anr. ...Respondents For Appellant Mr. Manoj Kumar Garg, Mr. Pulkit Atal, Advocates. For Respondents Mr. Ashish Verma, Ms. Salonee Keshwani, Advocates for Bank of Baroda with Soumya Garg Manager-Law Mr. Abhindra Maheshwari, Advocate for RP CMA SK Bhatt, RP CMA Kamal Deep Tyagi, Advocate for R1

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

07.08.2024: Heard Learned Counsel for the Appellant and Learned

Counsel for the Respondent.

2

2. These two Appeals have been filed against the order passed by the

Adjudicating Authority dated 28.02.2024 by which the application filed under

Section 95 by the Financial Creditor- Bank of Baroda has been admitted after

considering the report of the Resolution Professional submitted under Section

99.

3. Counsel for the Appellant submits that in the application which was

filed by the Financial Creditor, the quantum of debt was incorrectly shown

and further certain properties were already sold by the Bank credit of which

were not given. He further submits that the valuation shown in the certain

properties in the application was not correct which was without any valuation

report.

4. Counsel for the Respondent submits that the Adjudicating Authority

appointed the Resolution Professional in Section 95 proceedings and

thereafter report was submitted by the Resolution Professional. After

considering the report, application has been admitted and further steps has

been directed as per the impugned order.

5. We have considered the submissions of the Counsel for the parties and

perused the record.

6. The submission of the Appellant that the debt has not been correctly

shown in the application is not a question which can be ground to reject the

application under Section 95. The question of debt and adjustment of any

amount already realized by the Bank are the question which has to be taken

into consideration when payment plan is finalized. As far as the valuation of

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) Nos. 732 & 733 of 2024 3

the assets, it is always open for the Appellant to object before the Adjudicating

Authority by bringing appropriate material, if any. The said argument is also

not an argument for challenging admission of Section 95 application.

7. We, thus, are of the view that the Adjudicating Authority has not

committed any error in admitting Section 95 application after considering the

report submitted by the Resolution Professional. No grounds shown to

interfere with the impugned order. Amount realized by the Bank are to be

reflected at the time of finalization of the payment plan.

8. With these observations, Appeals are disposed of.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)

[Arun Baroka] Member (Technical) Anjali/nn

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) Nos. 732 & 733 of 2024