Mr. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Anr & Ors vs Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jain & Ors

IN THE MATTER OF: Sudhanshu Srivastava & Anr. ...Appellants Versus Rakesh Kumar Jain & Ors. ...Respondents

Present: For Appellant : Mr. Gautam Singhal, Mr. Rajat Chaudhary, Ms. Suraksha Mandhyan and Ms. Anjali Maurya, Advocates. For Respondents : Mr. Manoj Kumar Garg and Mr. Pulkit Atal, Advocates for R1.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

16.01.2026: This appeal has been filed against the order dated

09.10.2025 passed by National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi,

Court-III by which Adjudicating Authority has allowed the application for

liquidation IA No. 6026 of 2023 filed by the RP. The CIRP against the

corporate debtor commenced on 03.01.2023. The Committee of Creditors was

constituted and four meetings of CoC were took place however, Form-G could

not be published. In the CoC meeting held on 11.10.2023 i.e; is 4th CoC

meeting Agenda No.6 was taken and the CoC took the decision and resolve to

file an application for liquidation. In pursuance of which the RP filed an

application which has been allowed by the Adjudicating Authority by the

impugned order. Appeal has been filed by the suspended director challenging

the said order he submits that corporate debtor is a MSME and without issuing Form-G decision for liquidation could not have been taken by the

CoC.

2. Ld. Counsel appearing for liquidator submits that the CoC discussed in

its meeting about finalising the criteria for publication of Form-G but due to

relevant records not being available the criteria could not be finalised and

period of CIRP has already come to an end.

3. We have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the records.

4. Agenda item no.6 in which decision was taken for liquidation reads as

follows:-

"AGENDA ITEM NO. 6 TO DISCUSS AND TAKE NOTE OF LIQUIDATION OF CORPORATE DEBTOR Chairman apprised the CoC members that since this CoC meeting has been called on the request for majority CoC member Mis Viraj Technology lndia Limited (Formerly known as Loveni Marketing and Advertising Private Limited) to discuss about the possibility of Liquidation of the Corporate Debtor. He also informed the CoC members that a repeated mail is being received on the cirp mail id from entity name Kisan Experience Centre regarding enquiry for Form G publication and same has been replied accordingly by the resolution professional.

Discussion was held during the CoC meeting regarding pending decision on the Interim applications filed under i. Section 19(2) read alongwith section 70(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 read alongwith Rule 11 of NCLT Rules, 2016 seeking action against the suspended Directors of the Corporate Debtor, and ii. Section 18(l)(f) read alongwith section 25(2)(a) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 read alongwith Rule 11 of NCLT Rules, 20 16 seeking handover of the assets owned by the Corporate Debtor like registered office, motor vehicles etc. Further, discussion was also held in the CoC meeting regarding filing of pending PVR claim documents in the ongoing arbitration proceeding, since supporting claim documents are yet to be 2 of 4 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1918 of 2025 submitted by the Suspended Director Mr Sudhanshu Srivastava, at the office of Resolution Professional, in accordance with his commitment made in the last Third CoC meeting held on 26th August, 2023 to provide the same post rakhi festival.

Mr. Sudhanshu Srivastava, Suspended Director informed the CoC that the Corporate Debtor is an MSME registered entity and he being eligible for submission for Resolution Plan was interested in buying the Corporate Debtor.

CoC members intimated Mr. Sudhanshu Srivastava, suspended director that this MSME registration information was apprised by him to the CoC member in the last CoC meeting also and same is already incorporated in minutes of that meeting. CoC member also requested suspended director to provide his payment schedule and amount of EMO deposit for putting up the Resolution Plan for further consideration by the CoC members.

However, after repeated request being made to the suspended director he was not able to provide the proposed payment schedule and amount of EMD deposit for buying the corporate debtor.

Later, CoC after detailed discussion on current CIRP status being Nil support from the suspended director and repeated delay causing efforts made by him like initially filing Stay application with Hon'ble NCLAT under plea that settlement was under process with the applicant and no payment being done to the applicant later on, whereby, stay on CIRP process was vacated by Hon'ble appellate authority.

Now, showing of repeated interest by the suspended director in buying up the corporate debtor without providing the payment schedule and confirming the amount of EMD deposit after repeated request being made during the CoC meeting, only shows the delay causing tactics being followed by the suspended director to derail the CIRP and postpone the liquidation process, therefore, CoC decided to go ahead with the liquidation of the Corporate Debtor and requested for putting up the Liquidation Resolution and relevant resolutions required under CIRP Regulations and IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations,2016 under evoting agenda items/ e-voting platform."

3 of 4 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1918 of 2025

5. The Committee of Creditors has taken decision to file an application for

liquidation, admittedly, the period for CIRP has come to an end and no

resolution of the corporate debtor could be made. Adjudicating Authority after

considering all relevant facts has allowed the application and directed for

liquidation. The details of all CoC meetings have been taken note by the

Adjudicating Authority in the impugned order.

6. We thus are of the view that decision of the CoC to file an application

for liquidation in facts of present case cannot be faulted. The Adjudicating

Authority after considering all relevant facts has rightly allowed the

application and directed for liquidation. Appellant being Suspended Director

of the corporate debtor which is a registered MSME is always at liberty to

submit a Scheme of Arrangement under Regulation 2(B) of CIRP Regulation,

2016. If so advised, it is open for the appellant to submit a Scheme of

Arrangement before the liquidator for consideration.

With these observations, appeal is dismissed.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) harleen/MD

4 of 4 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1918 of 2025