Kalinga Metalics Limited vs Avil Menezes

IN THE MATTER OF: Kalinga Metaliks Ltd. ...Appellant(s)

Versus

Avil Menezes, Liquidator of Pratibha Industries Ltd. ...Respondent(s)

Present:

For Appellant : Mr. Vaibhav Gaggar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Siddhant Grover, Mr. Yajas Achal, Mr. Abhishek Nair, Mr. Aakash Kumar, Advocates

For Respondents : Mr. J Rajesh, Advocate

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

24.02.2026: Heard Ld. Counsel for Appellant and Ld. Counsel

appearing for the liquidator.

2. This Appeal has been filed against and order passed by the Adjudicating

Authority dated 24/06/2025 in IA(I.B.C.)/1728(MB)2025 and IA(I.B.C.)/2189

(MB) of 2024.

3. Appellant, by this Appeal, challenges the order of Adjudicating

authority passed in IA(I.B.C.)/1728(MB)2025.

In Appeal filed by the Appellant, Appellant has prayed for following reliefs.

RELIEFS SOUGHT

"In view of the aforesaid facts, points in dispute, question of law and the grounds/ submissions made/ raised hereinabove, the Appellant requests this Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal to:

a. Allow the captioned Appeal;

b. Set aside the NCLT Order dated 24 June 2025 to the limited

extent that it rejects/ does not approve the "Indicative Acquisition Structure" as sought in para 5.4 of IA 1728 of 2025.

c. Grant and approve the relief sought in para 5.4 of IA 1728 of 2025, seeking approval of the "Indicative Acquisition Structure".

d. Pass such further order or orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts of the present case".

4. The reliefs prayed in the Appeal is only confined to Para 5.4 of I.A. 1728

of 2025. Para 5.4 of the I.A 1728 of 2025 is as follows :

"5.4. The Indicative Acquisition Structure stands approved in its entirety, without the Successful Bidder requiring to make any separate applications before any court/tribunal/regulatory/governmental authority and direct that the order of this Hon'ble Tribunal approving the Indicative Acquisition Plan be treated as if the necessary approvals have been obtained under the provisions of Companies Act, 2013, Foreign Exchange management Act, 1999, Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 ("SEBI Act") and the rules and regulations framed thereunder, including consent of shareholders and creditors of the Corporate Debtor."

5. The Appellant was successful auction purchaser of the CD as a going

concern and after sale was given confirmation, an Application was filed in I.A.

(IBC)/1728/MB/2025 praying for various reliefs.

2 of 4

6. Adjudicating Authority, by the impugned order on 24/06/2025 has

granted several reliefs and concessions, as noted in Para 13. Ld. Counsel for

Appellant submitted that in Para 12, observations made by the Adjudicating

Authority are to the effect that Adjudicating Authority is denying the benefit

of sale as a going concern. It is further submitted that the prayers made in

Para 5.4 deserved to be considered and allowed.

7. We have considered submissions of the Counsels for Parties and

perused the record. When we look into Para 12 and 13 of the impugned order,

it is clear that despite making observations in Paragraph 12, the Adjudicating

Authority has granted reliefs and concessions in Paragraph 13 (a) to (x),

including the concessions regarding extinguishments of debts, monetary or

non-monetary, known or not known, filed or not filed, verified or not verified.

8. Reliefs, having been confined only to Para 5.4 as noted above, which

claims that indicative acquisition structures stand approved in its entirety

without successful bidders requiring to make any separate application before

any Court/ Tribunal/ Regulatory Government Authorities and direct that this

Tribunals approving the indicative acquisitions, he treated it necessary

approval have been obtained under provisions of Companies Act, Foreign

Exchange Management Act 1999 and Exchange Board of India Act 1992.

9. The Appellant's prayer is too wide and cannot be accepted. The

Applicant, successful bidder has to make an application before the Statutory

Regulating Authority for necessary permissions, which cannot be treated to

have been granted as relief and concessions by the Adjudicating Authority.

3 of 4 10 We thus are of the view that prayer in the Appeal, with respect to Para

5.4 cannot be granted. We do not find any error in the order of the

Adjudicating Authority.

11. We make it clear that it shall be open for the successful auction

purchaser to make appropriate Application before various Regulatory

Authorities, which may be considered in accordance with law.

12. Appeal dismissed with the above observations.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) Prerana/md

4 of 4