Manish Bagrodia Director Suspended ... vs Anil Kohli Resolution Professional Of ...

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 93 of 2026 IN THE MATTER OF: Manish Bagrodia Promoter and Director (Suspended ...Appellant(s) Powers) Of Winsome Yarns Limited. Versus

Anil Kohli, ARCK Resolution Professionals LLP ...Respondent(s) Resolution Professional for Winsome Yarns Limited Present: For Applicant : Mr. Pulkit Deora, Mr. Sagar Pathak, Mr. Vinamra Kothari, Advocates

For Respondents : Mr. Sandeep Bajaj, Ms. Hoeny Satpal, Mr. Nakashvir S Aulakh, Mr. Akash Agarwalla, Ms. Pooja Singh, Mr. Aman, Advocates for R1

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

22.01.2026 Heard Learned Counsel for Appellant and Shri Sandeep

Bajaj, appearing for the Resolution Professional.

2. This Appeal has been filed against the order dated 28/11/2025 passed

in I.A. No 855 of 2025 and I.A. No 1187 of 2025 which was filed by the

Appellant, the promoter of Corporate debtor raising various objection to the

Resolution Plan which has been approved by the Committee of Creditors

(COC) and is pending consideration before the Adjudicating Authority. Shri

Deora submitted that Appellant who is a promoter, entitled to participate in

the proceedings of the Committee of Creditors (COC) was not permitted to

participate from 14th COC meeting to 18th COC meeting with regard to which

objection has been raised, and has been rejected.

It is further submitted that the claim of the creditors, as reflected in the

website before the IBBI, they do not find correct reflection in the Resolution

Plan submitted by SRA.

It is further submitted that there is no clarity with regard to EMD

whether it is 5 crores or 5.5 crores. He submitted that objections raised by

the Appellant were required to be considered and allowed.

Shri Bajaj, Ld Counsel appearing for the Respondent submitted that

the Appellant himself had submitted a settlement proposal which was being

considered by the COC hence there being conflict of interest, he was not

permitted to participate in the said meetings and in fact, he himself excused

form the said meeting and never raised any objection till the Plan was

approved by the COC.

He further submitted that there is no inconsistency between the claim

which were admitted and claim which were reflected in that Resolution Plan

of the SRA.

In so far as the submission of the EMB is concerned, he submitted that

Expression of Interest (EOI) was Rs. 50,00,000/- and 5 crores with regard to

the Resolution Plan and there was no dispute with regard to the above fact.

We have considered submission of the Counsels for Parties and perused

the record. In so far as the submission of the Appellant, that he was not

permitted to participate in the COC Mtg, 14th to 18th. The reasons advanced

is that the Appellant had submitted Settlement proposal and there was a

Conflict of Interest, hence was not permitted participation by promoters. Any

stakeholder who have conflict of interest can be asked not to participate and

so far as the submissions of the Appellant that the amount of creditors claim

admitted as reflected in the IBBI website is not being reflected in the Plan of

the Resolution Application. We are of the view that the Plan being still under 2 of 4 consideration before the Adjudicating Authority, Adjudicating Authority is to

look into the issue as to whether the Plan complies with Section 30 (2) of the

IBC as well as the CIRP Regulation 2016. The Plan is to be approved by the

Adjudicating Authority on satisfaction with the Statutory Compliances. With

these observations, we thus, are of the view that in so far as the above aspect,

Adjudicating Authority shall consider while considering the Plan Approval

Application.

As far as the EMD is concerned, it has been clarified and has also been

observed in the Impugned Order by the Adjudicating Authority that EOI

Rs. 50,00,000/- along with EMD of Rs. 5,00,00,000 was to be deposited along

with the Plan, which observation has been made by the Adjudicating

Authority, in Paragraph II(f) of the impugned order.

We thus, do not find any error in the order or any ground to interfere

in the order by this Appeal.

We, however observe that Plan approval application shall be considered

on its own merits and Adjudication Authority shall consider as to whether

Plan complies with section 30(2) of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC)

2016.

3 of 4 With these observations, we dismiss the Appeal.

Appeal Dismissed.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) Prerana/md

4 of 4