Linen Art Private Limited vs Mr. Ram Singh Setia Resolution ...

IN THE MATTER OF: Linen Art Private Limited ...Appellant

Versus

Ram Singh Setia, Resolution Professional of Bombay Rayon Clothing Limited ...Respondent

Present: For Appellant : Mr. Gopal Jain, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Shrishti Agnihotri, Mr. Bharat Bani, Mr. Amay Bahri, Advocates. For Respondent : Mr. Abhijeet Sinha, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Anuj Tiwari, Ms. Shalini Basu, Mr. Vaibhav Vats, Ms. Heena Kochar, Mr. Ayush K. Rajani, Advocates.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

23.01.2026: Heard learned counsel for the Appellant as well as learned

counsel appearing for the Resolution Professional. This appeal has been filed

against the order dated 06.11.2025 passed in I.A. No.4625 of 2025 which has

been dismissed by the Adjudicating Authority. In Para 2 of the order following

has been observed:

"2. In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.U. Toll Road Put. Ltd. vs. State Bank of India, the Interlocutory Application stands dismissed. A separate opportunity had been granted to file the Written Statement; however, the same has not been filed. Accordingly, the right to file the Written Statement

Cont'd.../ is also closed. Accordingly, IA 4625/2025 is dismissed."

2. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the judgment which has

been relied by the Adjudicating Authority is not a judgment of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court rather it is order of this Tribunal which was on different facts

and has no applicability with regard to I.A. No.4625 of 2025 filed by the

Appellant. It is submitted that the Appellant's application was required to be

heard and without considering it on merits it has been rejected.

3. Shri Abhijeet Sinha, learned senior counsel appearing for the

Resolution Professional submits that the Resolution Professional has already

filed an I.A. No.4576 of 2025, which was filed for eviction of the Appellant,

which was prior filing of application by the Appellant and in the said

application no reply was filed by the Appellant and application has already

been heard and reserved on 28.11.2025.

4. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties

and perused the record.

5. The judgment of this Tribunal which has been relied by the

Adjudicating Authority was not in facts of the case where application was filed

by the Resolution Professional for eviction of Appellant and subsequent

application is filed by the Appellant praying certain prayers, which prayers

have been noticed in Para 1 of the order, which is as follows:

"1. This application has been filed by the Applicant. The following reliefs are sought:-

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.91 of 2026 2 of 4

a) Allow the present application and direct the RP to withdraw the notice for eviction dated 9 July 2025 and the application filed by the Resolution Professional! before this Hon'ble Adjudicating Authority seeking eviction of the Concerned Premises.

b) Report to IBBI regarding the mala fide, arbitrary and wrongful conduct of the RP, while conducting the CIRP of the Corporate Debtor and direct IBBI to start necessary investigation against the RP.

c) Allow the applicant to peacefully retain the possession of the Concerned Premises.

d) direct the RP to accordingly, update and change the information memorandum for the Bombay Rayon Clothing Limited.

e) Alternatively, direct the RP to reimburse and indemnify the Applicant for the loss of business and operations and return of the investments made by the Applicant on the Concerned Premises.

f) As an interim relief, direct the resolution professional to inform all the resolution applicants submitting resolution plans for the Bombay Rayon Clothing Limited, about the ongoing proceedings and that the availability of the Concerned Premises is subject to outcome of the said Application."

6. The judgment of this Tribunal in S.U. Toll Road Put. Ltd. vs. State

Bank of India was a case where the Corporate Debtor having already filed

reply in Section 7 application was praying for deferment of hearing, which was

rejected. This tribunal took the view that no error has been committed by the

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.91 of 2026 3 of 4 Adjudicating Authority in rejecting the application, which judgment shall not

be applicable in the facts of the application filed by the Appellant where

application filed by the RP was seeking eviction of the Appellant and

Appellant's application was seeking certain reliefs. We are of the view that

the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority in I.A. No. 4625 of 2025 needs

to be set aside and is hereby set aside reviving the application before the

Adjudicating Authority for consideration and passing fresh order.

7. Learned counsel for the Resolution Professional submits that he shall

file reply to I.A. No. 4625 of 2025 within a week. He may do so. Rejoinder, if

any, may be also filed within one week thereafter. Both the parties may

request the Court to fix a date in the application after two weeks for hearing.

8. We make it clear that hearing of this application I.A. No. 4625 of 2025

shall not have any bearing on I.A. No.4576 of 2025, which has already been

reserved.

9. Appeal is allowed to the above extent.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) Archana/md

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.91 of 2026 4 of 4