Mahesh Chandra Purohit vs Satyendra Prasad Khorania
- CitationComp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 856 of 2026
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Adjudicating Authority does not err in dismissing an application for payment of professional fees and expenses under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code where neither the Committee of Creditors nor the Suspended Management, whom the application would affect, has been impleaded as a party; impleading only the Resolution Professional is insufficient to found the claim against those necessary parties.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE MATTER OF: Mahesh Chandra Purohit ...Appellant(s)
Versus
Satyendra Prasad Khorania RP for Coral Infra Gold Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondent(s)
Present: For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vishal Hirawat, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : None.
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
25.05.2026 This Appeal has been filed challenging the order dated
20.03.2026 passed in I.A. No. 194 of 2023 which I.A. has been dismissed in
view of the order passed in I.A. No. 121/JPR/2026. The Applicant is Erstwhile
Resolution Professional, who had filed an I.A. No. 194/JPR/2023 for the
payment of certain fee and expanses in the application, only Resolution
Professional was impleaded.
2. The Adjudicating Authority in its order dated 08.12.2025 has noted that
the Resolution Professional prays for time to implead CoC and Suspended
Management. I.A. No. 121 of 2026 has filed by the Applicant to recall the order
dated 08.12.2025 which has been allowed by the order dated 20.03.2026. The
effect of the order allowing the I.A. No. 121/JPR/2026 is that in the I.A. No.
194 of 2023 neither the CoC nor the Suspended Management is the party.
3. Ld. Counsel for the Applicant submitted that the Applicant impleaded
the Resolution Professional since the Applicant prayed for his fee from the
Resolution Professional who was carrying out the CIRP. We are of the view that the Adjudicating Authority did not commit any error in rejecting the I.A.
No. 194 of 2023 since, neither the Suspended Management nor the CoC was
impleaded.
4. We are of the view that the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority
cannot be faulted. Ld. Counsel for the Applicant sought liberty to file a fresh
application before the Adjudicating Authority. We are of the view that
applications having been rejected, it shall be open to the Applicant to take
such remedy available in law. With these observations the Appeal is
dismissed.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) Abhishek/Manu
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