Mahesh Ganpat Angane & Ors vs Dr. Mamta Binani & Ors

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 578 of 2026 & I.A. No. 2237, 2143 of 2026 IN THE MATTER OF: Mahesh Ganpat Angane & Ors. ...Appellant(s)

Versus Dr. Mamta Binani and Anr. ...Respondent(s)

Present: For Appellant : Mr. Mayank Kshirsagar, Ms. Pavani Verma, Advocates

For Respondents : Mr. Ananya Pratap Singh, Ms. Gyanika Kocchar, Advocates for R1

With Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 580 of 2026 IN THE MATTER OF: Vijay Vaman Panchal & Ors. ...Appellant(s)

Versus Dr. Mamta Binani & Anr. ...Respondent(s)

Present: For Appellant : Mr. Mayank Kshirsagar, Ms. Pavani Verma, Advocates

For Respondents : Mr. Ananya Pratap Singh, Ms. Gyanika Kocchar, Advocates for R1

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

08.04.2026 I.A. No. 2237 of 2026 This is an Application praying for

condonation of 8 days delay in filing the Appeal.

2. The delay is within condonable period and we find sufficient cause has

been shown in Paragraph 2(d) and 2(e).

3. Delay condoned

I.A. No. 2143 of 2026 This is an Application praying for condonation of 43

day delay in refiling the Appeal.

3. The ground taken in the Application is that the Appellants are from

out of stations and some of the documents required are not readily available

with the Counsel and Appellant had to be contacted and it took some time.

4. Sufficient cause is shown.

5. Refiling delay condoned.

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 578 & 580 of 2026 These two Appeals have

been filed by the ex-employees of the Corporate Debtor challenging the order

dated 15/12/2025 passed by National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai

Bench-I in IA (IBC) (Plan) 65 of 2024.

2. By the impugned order, the Adjudicating Authority has allowed the

Application and approved the Resolution Plan. Ld. Counsel for Appellant has

very fairly pointed out to the court that against the same order, certain other

employees have filed the Appeal, Comp App (AT) (Ins) 241 of 2026

Mohammed Ismail Ansari Vs. Dr. Mamta Binani & Ors, where this

tribunal has already, after considering the submission, had dismissed the

Appeal.

3. Ld. Counsel for Respondent submitted that this tribunal has

considered all submissions raised by the Appellants and upheld the order

and hence this Appeal also need to be decided in terms of the said order.

4. Ld. Counsel for Appellant submitted that in the judgement of this

tribunal dated 30/03/2026, the Respondents have not correctly construed 2 of 4 the order dated 05/12/2025 passed by the Adjudicating Authority in the

proceeding and the payment to the Appellant is not fair and equitable which

is required under Section 30 [2] (b).

5. We have considered submissions of the Appellant and perused the

record.

6. The judgement of this Tribunal dated 03/03/2026 has noticed the

order dated 05/12/2025 and has also noticed the details of the payments,

as contained in Paragraph 7.8 of the Appeal and it was found that the

payment made to the employees was more than that paid to the unsecured

financial creditor, who were receiving only 0.98% of their claim.

7. It is well settled that approval of the Resolution Plan can be interfered

by the Adjudicating Authority when there is a violation of Provision of

Section 30 [2] (b). The entitlement of operational creditor is provided in

Section 30 [2] (b) and present, it is not shown that there is any violation of

the said provision.

8. We thus are of the view that, we having already upheld the order

dated 05/12/2025, this Appeal also need to be decided in terms of the said

order.

9. Following the earlier judgement dated 03/03/2026, both the Appeals

are dismissed.

10. Ld. Counsel for Appellant has submitted that order dated 05/12/2025

provided that minimum entitlement of 12 month salary and the Resolution

Plan does not provide for minimum 12 month salary.

3 of 4

11. We having already noticed the order and interpreted the same, we are

unable to take any different.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Indevar Pandey] Member (Technical) Prerana/md

4 of 4