Mr. Ramesh Jadhav vs Mr. Vakati Balasubramanyam Reddy The ...

IN THE MATTER OF: Ramesh Jadhav ...Appellant

Versus

Vakati Balasubramnayam Reddy & Anr. ...Respondents

Present: For Appellant : Present but appearance not marked. For Respondents :

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

28.01.2025: Heard learned counsel for the Appellant. This Appeal has

been filed against order dated 07.01.2025 by the Appellant who claims to be

Suspended Director of the Corporate Debtor. The order has been passed in

IA No.5211 of 2023 which was filed by the Appellant. The prayers made in

the application have been quoted in Para 1 of the order, which are as follows:

"A. Debar the RP from acting as the Resolution Professional of the Corporate Debtor; B. Recall order passed by this Hon'ble Tribunal on 05.09.2023 for time extension.

C. Accepted resolution plan by COC be set aside; D. Decide this Application in a time bound manner; E. The Corporate Debtor be ordered to be dealt under the Liquidation Proceedings;

F. Impose heavy cost upon the RP;

G. Pass any such order/orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case."

Cont'd.../ 2

2. When we look in to the prayers, the prayer is to debar the Resolution

Professional from acting as the Resolution Professional and recall order dated

05.09.2023 and accepted resolution plan by the CoC be set aside. The

Adjudicating Authority after hearing the applicant and other side has passed

the order rejecting the application filed by the Appellant.

3. Learned counsel for the Appellant challenging the order contends that

the Adjudicating Authority has permitted withdrawal of the liquidation

application without there being any resolution of the CoC which itself was

impermissible.

4. The Adjudicating Authority in Para 2 of the findings have noted that the

resolution was passed by the CoC by filing application for extending CIRP

period for 90 days and on the basis of said resolution an application was filed;

which extension was allowed by the Adjudicating Authority. The Adjudicating

Authority observed that since resolution was already passed by the CoC

seeking extension of the CIRP period, the Corporate Debtor did not go into

compulsory liquidation under Section 33(1)(A) of the Code. It was also noticed

that the Resolution Professional has also filed an application for issuance of

revised Form G and 5th meeting of CoC held on 11.01.2023 has also voted on

"Approval to make an application to NCLT for permission to publish Form G for

the third time to invite fresh Resolution Applicants.". With the aforesaid

approval of the CoC, the application was filed.

5. The Adjudicating Authority, thus, did not commit any error in rejecting

the application filed by the Appellant praying for recall of order dated

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.173 of 2025 3

05.09.2023 and debar Resolution Professional. The submission of the

Appellant that there was no decision of the CoC permitting withdrawal of the

liquidation application, hence, the Adjudicating Authority committed error in

permitting withdrawal of application, does not commend us. When the CoC

has already taken decision to file application for extension of time and

granting permission to publish Form G for third time, no error was committed

by the Adjudicating Authority by permitting withdrawal of the liquidation

application, in facts of the present case. We, thus, do not find any grounds

to interfere with the impugned order. There is not merit in the Appeal. Appeal

is dismissed.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)

[Arun Baroka] Member (Technical) Archana/nn

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.173 of 2025