Mr. Neville Tuli (Suspended Director Of ... vs Girish Siriram Juneja & Anr

Neville Tulli & Anr. ...Appellant(s)

Versus

Girish Siriram Juneja ...Respondent(s) RP of the Osian's Connoisseurs of Art Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Present: For Appellant : Ms. Pranati Bhatnagar & Ms. Palak Johnson, for A1 & 2. For Respondents : Mr. Saurabh Kalia & Ms. Ateendra Saumya Singh, for R-2/ SRA. Mr. Himanshu Satija, Mr. Harsh Saxena, Mr. MV. Anshul Rao, Advocates for RP.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode) [Per: Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain(Oral)

11.08.2025: This appeal is filed by two appellants, namely, Mr. Neville

Tuli, Suspended Director of the CD, Appellant No. 1 and Derivaz & Ivaz

Auciton House Pvt. Ltd., Appellant No. 2 in which a prayer has been made

for setting aside the order dated 07.04.2025, passed in IA No. 2645 of 2022

by which the resolution plan of Respondent No. 2, approved by the CoC has

been further approved by the Ld. Tribunal.

2. In brief, IDBI Bank filed an application under Section 7 against M/s

Osian's Connoisseurs of Art Pvt. Ltd. which was admitted into CIRP on 09.12.2021 and Mr. Girish Siriram Juneja was appointed as the IRP who

was later on confirmed as the RP.

3. The IRP, after having been appointed as such, in compliance of

Section 13 and 15 of the Code, made a public announcement regarding

commencement of CIRP for the purpose of inviting claims from the creditors

of the CD.

4. Counsel for the appellant has admitted that the amount which is

now being claimed as outstanding rent of Rs. 53,35,500/- was never set up

as a claim before the IRP. It is however, submitted that the aforesaid

amount is being claimed by the appellant, inter alia, on the ground that the

CD had kept its art work with Appellant No. 1 and 2 which has incurred the

rent of the aforesaid amount. The appellant, besides challenging the validity

of the impugned order by which the resolution plan has been approved has

also prayed in alternative that the SRA (Respondent No. 2) may be directed

to pay the aforesaid amount towards storage of the assets of the CD during

the CIRP. It is also prayed by the appellants, in the alternative, that the

impugned order may be set aside and the matter may be remanded back to

the Tribunal for consideration of Resolution Plan in view of the, the

outstanding rent incurred as stated above.

5. Both the Respondents are present in court on the advance notice

given by the appellants. Both the Respondents have vehemently contested

the issuance of notice in the present appeal, inter alia, on the ground that

the present appeal is not maintainable because the appellant cannot claim the aforesaid amount which has not been claimed by the appellant before

the IRP.

6. In support of their submission, an order passed by NCLAT Chennai

in Malay Bhadra vs. Mr. CA Jasin Jose, CA (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 135 of 2023

decided on 08.11.2024 has been produced and relied upon.

7. Counsel for the appellant has not cited any Judgment to the

contrary.

8. We have heard Counsel for the parties and after perusal of record,

are of the considered opinion that no relief can be granted to the appellants

because, firstly, the appellant did not file their claim to the IRP and

secondly, there was no contract between the CD and the appellants for

renting out the premises of the appellants by the CD, on the basis of which

the appellants are now claiming the rent of the said premises. In this regard,

reference may be had to the two rents agreements available on record i.e.

the agreement dated 14.01.2022 which was executed between M/s Shah

Industrial Corporation and Derivas & Ives Auction House Pvt. Ltd. i.e.

Appellant No. 2, at Mumbai and the Lease Rent agreement dated 01.11.2022

which too was executed between Mrs. Promila, wife of Mr. Gordhan Singh,

Resident of 33/9, Kishangarh, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi with Appellant No. 2.

9. Faced with this documentary evidence on record, Ld. Counsel for

the appellant has submitted that there was an oral agreement between the

CD and the appellants for the purpose of storing the art work of the CD in

their premises for which the present appellants are claiming their rent.

10. We do not agree with this contention of the appellants because no

evidence qua the oral agreement between the appellants and the CD is

available.

11. Moreover, in the case of Malay Bhadra (supra) the Hon'ble Chennai

Bench has held that if the claim has been filed before the RP and the same

stood rejected by an order which has not been challenged then it attains

finality, therefore, the said appellant shall not have any locus to challenge

the approval of the resolution plan. However, the present case, admittedly

there was no claim made by the present appellants to the RP, therefore, the

order passed in aforesaid case squarely applies.

12. In view thereof, we are of the considered opinion that the appellants

have no locus to challenge the resolution plan or to make the alternative

prayer as stated herein above.

13. With these observation, the present appeal is found to be devoid of

any merits and the same is hereby dismissed. The parties shall bear their

own costs.

14. Pending IA's if any, is/are closed.

[Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain] Member (Judicial)

[Justice Mohammad Faiz Alam Khan] Member (Judicial)

[Indevar Pandey] Member (Technical) sr/rr