Mehul Harish Gosar vs Athena Constructions Limited

Mehul Harish Gosar ...Appellant

Vs.

1. M/s. Athena Constructions Ltd. ...Respondent No.1

2. M/s. Parorch Developers LLP ...Respondent No.2 through IRP

For Appellant: Mr. Krishnendu Datta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Apoorv Shukla, Mr. Prerak Sharma, Ms. Prabhleen A. Shukla and Mr. Ayush Acharjee, Advocates

For Respondent: Ms. Aakashi Lodha, Mr. Aditya Sharan and Mr. Rohit Gupta, Advocates for R-1

(Arising out of Impugned Order dated 08.05.2025 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench-II) in C.P. (I.B) No.539/MB/2024)

JUDGEMENT

Per Justice N. Seshasayee, Member (Judicial)

1. This Appeal is preferred challenging the Order of the Adjudicating

Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench - II in CP 2

(IB) No.539/MB/2024) dated 08.05.2025 by which Order the

Adjudicating Authority had admitted the respondent - Parorch

Developers LLP to a CIRP proceeding. The core contention taken in this

appeal is that the appellant was not given an opportunity of hearing by

the Tribunal.

2. Shri Krishnendu Datta, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant

submitted that even on 14.02.2025, the appellant had informed the

Adjudicating Authority that the issue is likely to be settled. Indeed on

19.03.2025, accommodation was sought for filing the Reply. The learned

Counsel added that as of now, the appellant had fully settled the

Financial Creditor who initiated the CIRP. Placing reliance on Abhishek

Singh, Suspended Director of Manpasand Beverages Ltd. v.

Yoginkumar Ashokbhai Patel & another in [Company Appeal (AT)

(Ins) No.1863 of 2024], the learned Counsel submitted that this Tribunal

may set aside the Order and record settlement of the case and close the

Order admitting the CIRP.

3. The learned Counsel for the respondents/Financial Creditors submitted

that their dues have been settled.

4. There are two aspects to this Appeal:

(a) That whether CIRP may have to be closed as was done in CA 1863 of

2024;

(b) and if it is not so closed, what should be the Order on merit.

5. So far as the second question is concerned, on perusing the papers, we

are of the opinion that the appellant in effect had not been heard on 3

merits and deserves an opportunity. Necessarily the Order of the

Adjudicating Authority may have to be set aside. The next issue is

should this Tribunal record the settlement between the parties and

terminate the CIRP, since, with our decision to set aside the Order of

the Adjudicating Authority, the case is relegated to a stage prior to the

admission of the CD to CIRP.

6. Since, the CIRP has commenced, it is conceivable that the IRP might

have received some claims, and hence those claims, if any, cannot be

ignored. Then it will may well be a case where the it may have to be

decided how to go about the matter in the light of the ratio in Glas Trust

Company. LLC Vs Byju Raveendran & Others [(2025)3 SCC 625]

Therefore, it would only be appropriate that the matter is remanded

back to the Adjudicating Authority to deal with the issue of settlement

as per law.

7. In conclusion, the Appeal is allowed and the Order of the Adjudicating

Authority dated 08.05.2025 in C.P. (I.B) No.539/MB/2024 is set aside

and the matter is remanded back to the Adjudicating Authority. The

parties are free to move the Adjudicating Authority with their plea of

settlement. No costs.

[Justice N. Seshasayee] Member (Judicial)

[Arun Baroka] Member (Technical) rs/sk