Krishna Sahil Constructions Private ... vs Hemant Sharma
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1940 of 2025
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The reasoning here rests on a single principle: where a claimant who received a mobilisation advance under a contract with the corporate debtor has lodged its claim, including its claim for the work done, before the Resolution Professional, and the resolution plan is pending before the Adjudicating Authority, the Adjudicating Authority may properly decline to order release of a bank guarantee furnished against that advance, leaving the claimant to pursue its entitlement through the claim process and the approved plan. No opinion is expressed on the merits of the parties' submissions, including any question of set-off, which is not to be examined in that proceeding.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE MATTER OF: Krishna Sahil Constructions Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellant
Versus
Hemant Sharma, RP ...Respondent
Present: For Appellant : Ms. Pooja Mehra Seghal, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Bani Dikshit, Mr. Dhruva Vig, Mr. Uddhar Khanna, Mr. Nivesh Dixit, Mr. Ankti Mittal, Advocates. For Respondent : Mr. Kanishk Khetan, Mr. Akash Srivastava, Advocates. Mr. Karan Grover, Advocate for SRA.
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
05.01.2026: Heard learned counsel for the Appellant as well as learned
counsel for the Respondent. This appeal has been filed against order dated
07.11.2025 by which IA No.2932/2024 filed by the Appellant has been
rejected. In the IA the Appellant has sought following reliefs:
"a. Release of the bank guarantees with respect to mobilisation advance issued by the Applicant in favour of the Corporate Debtor, to the tune of Rs.1,29,30,000/-, enumerated in Para 3, above;
b. Grant any other relief."
2. A contract was entered with Appellant and the Resolution Professional
under which mobilisation advance of Rs.1,29,30,000/- was given to the
Appellant to carry out the work, with respect to which Bank Guarantee was
given by the Appellant to the Corporate Debtor.
Cont'd.../
3. Appellant filed an application before the Adjudicating Authority seeking
release of the Bank Guarantee. Admittedly, the Appellant has also filed claim
before the Resolution Professional regarding the work both pre-CIPR and
during CIRP. The plan has been approved by the CoC and pending
consideration before the Adjudicating Authority.
4. When Appellant entered into contract with the Corporate Debtor and
received mobilisation advance for which Bank Guarantee was given, we are of
the view that the Adjudicating Authority rightly did not allow the application
seeking release of the Bank Guarantee. The claim of the Appellant is already
under consideration in the plan and shall abide by the orders passed by the
Adjudicating Authority. We, thus, do not find any error in the order of the
Adjudicating Authority rejecting the application filed by the Appellant. Appeal
is dismissed.
5 We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits
of the submissions of either of the parties. The submission made by learned
counsel for the Appellant for set off also cannot be gone into in this
proceeding.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) Archana/md
Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.1940 of 2025 2 of 2
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