Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited vs Atul Kumar Kansal Resolution ...
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 964 of 2025
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a resolution plan provides that any benefit arising from extra FAR available at the business park shall form part of the liquidation estate of the corporate debtor, that liquidation estate is to be distributed in accordance with Section 53 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; this is a settled position of law and the plan's clause is to be read as implicitly so providing, so no clarification on that distribution point is required. An appeal against approval of a resolution plan under Sections 30(6) and 31 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 cannot succeed where the appellant has pointed to no error in the adjudicating authority's order and has confined its challenge to a clarification the plan itself already answers.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE MATTER OF: Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. ...Appellant Versus Atul Kumar Kansal & Ors. ...Respondents
Present: For Appellant : Mr. Satish Kumar Rai, Mr. Abhay Gupta and Ms. Lakshay Agarwal, Advocates.
For Respondents : Mr. Swapnil Gupta and Mr. Vaibhav Mendiratta, Advocates for Erstwhile RP.
Mr. Saurav Aggarwal, Mr. Himanshu Kapoor and Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocates for SRA.
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
13.11.2025 : This appeal has been filed by Kotak Mahindra Bank against
an order dated 07.03.2025, by which order the adjudicating authority has
allowed the application I.A. No.5003/2021 preferred under Section 30(6) r/w
Section 31 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (for short the 'IBC')
seeking approval of the resolution plan qua the corporate debtor which plan
was submitted by Universal Aura Welfare Association, Universal Greens
Buyers Association and Universal Business Park Owners Association.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant confined his appeal only to the extent
that with regard to surplus area of business park although plan provides that
any benefit arising form extra FAR available at Universal Business Park shall form part of liquidation estate of corporate debtor but does not provides that
shall be distributed as per Section 53 of the IBC.
3. Counsel for the respondent objecting to the appeal submits that it is
recorded by the adjudicating authority at more than two places in the order
in paragraphs 29 & 50 that Bank has no objection to the resolution plan.
4. We have considered the submissions of the counsel for the parties and
perused the records.
5. In paragraph 50 of the order, following observations have been made by
the adjudicating authority:
"50. ...Here, it would not be out of context to note that after having reserved the order, we have listed the matter for clarification and during the course of hearing on clarification i.e. 06.02.2025, when we reserved the orders again, Mr. Bhatt, the Ld. Counsel for Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd and Kotak Prime Limited categorically submitted that after approval of addendum by CoC and in view of the fact that the representative of Bank would be part of the Monitoring Committee, he has no objection to the Resolution Plan."
6. Learned counsel for the appellant also in his submission has not raised
any objection except the clarification as noted above.
7. We, thus are of the view that no error has been pointed out in the order
which warrant any interference by this Tribunal in exercise of appellate
jurisdiction. Now coming to the clarification which has been sought in
paragraph 2 with regard to business park surplus area, plan states following:
"2. Any surplus in area in Business Park after forensic audit and allocation to Unit holders shall form part of the liquidation estate of Corporate Debtor. A detailed report of forensic audit shall be submitted to Monitoring Committee, Liquidator and Hon'ble NCLT. Further any benefit arising from extra FAR available at Universal Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 964 of 2025 & I.A. No. 3691 of 2025 2 of 3 Business Park shall form part of liquidation estate of Corporate Debtor."
8. The above clause in the plan itself provides that any benefit arising from
extra FAR available at Universal Business Park shall form part of liquidation
estate of corporate debtor, it is obvious that the said liquidation estate shall
be distributed as per Section 53 of the IBC, which is a settled position of law
and does not require any clarification.
9. We thus are of the view that it is implicit in paragraph 2 in the aforesaid
plan that part of liquidation estate shall be distributed as per Section 53 of
the IBC.
With these observations, the appeal is dismissed.
Learned counsel for the SRA submits that he has prepared the draft for
payment of the appellant as per the plan. It shall be open for the SRA to
submit the draft to the Bank.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) himanshu/md
Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 964 of 2025 & I.A. No. 3691 of 2025 3 of 3
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