M/S Radiant Guard Services Private ... vs M/S Roadway Solutions India Infra ...

Radiant Guard Services Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellant(s)

Versus

Roadway Solutions India Infra Ltd. ...Respondent(s) Present: For Appellant : Mr. Chaitanya P Nikte, Anuj Tiwari, Shalini Basu, Shivendra nath, Vaibhav Vats, Sameer Mishra, Adv. For Respondents : Mr. Abhijeet Sinha, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Pranav Khanna, Varun Kalra, Ved Prakash, Parag Khandhar, Tapan Radkar, Shahan Ulla, Adv.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode) 16.02.2026: Heard Ld. Counsel for the Appellant as well as Ld. Counsel

for the Respondent.

2. This appeal has been filed against the order dated 30.01.2026 passed

in IA(I.B.C)5901/MB/2025 IN CP(IB)/392/MB/2025.

3. The Appellant is the Operational Creditor who has filed the application

under Section 9 in which reply and rejoinder were filed and the matter was

heard and reserved on 26.11.2025.

4. It was subsequent to reserving order on the Section 9 application, I.A

No. 5901 of 2025 was filed where prayers in the said application has been

noticed in para 1 of the order which is as follows :-

""a. Allow the present Application and urgently list the C.P.(IB)/392(MB)2025 on any convenient date to this Hon'ble Tribunal;

b. Consider the submissions made on behalf of the Applicant in the present Application;

c. Take on record and consider the documents annexed to the present Application;

d. Pass such other orders as may be just and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the present case.""

5. The Adjudicating Authority heard the parties and by impugned order

has directed the I.A to be listed alongwith CP on 17.02.2026 for further

consideration.

6. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant challenging the order submits that the

Appellant is entitled to challenge the maintainability of the application which

was filed after order was reserved in Section 9 application. He submits that

the Court has also by the same order deserved the CP and directed to be listed

on 17.02.2026.

7. We have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

8. In para 23 of the order, the Adjudicating Authority has made following

orders:-

"23.We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the contents of the IA and the views expressed herein are prima facie views only. The final views will be expressed after going through the respective pleadings and hearing both the sides."

9. Thus, the Adjudicating Authority has not taken any final view with

regard to application and it is open for the Appellant to raise all the objection

including the objection of maintainability, there can only be two course open,

either the I.A No. 5901 of 2025 is rejected or 5901 of 2025 is allowed. In both

situations, we are of the view that both the parties should be given

opportunity to address their submissions on the CP filed under Section 9.

10. We thus are of the view that no fruitful purpose be served in keeping

the appeal pending. The appeal is disposed of giving liberty to the Appellant

to raise all objections in I.A No. 5901 of 2025 when the matter is heard.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Indevar Pandey] Member (Technical) Sheetal/Manu