Mr. Suresh Garg Scheme Propounder For ... vs Anandtex International Private ...
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 635 of 2026
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal holds that, where the propounder of a Section 230 scheme is said to be a promoter or director whose eligibility under Section 29A(g) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code may be affected by pending PUFE applications, the adjudicating authority may not defer consideration of the scheme application merely on account of that pendency, since eligibility under Section 29A is assessed as on the date of consideration and no ineligibility subsists on the date in question.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE MATTER OF: Suresh Garg Scheme Propounder for Anandtex International Private Limited & Anr. ...Appellants Versus Anandtex International Private Limited (In Liquidation) Through Its Liquidator Hitesh Goel & Anr. ...Respondents
Present: For Appellants : Mr. Abhishek Anand and Ms. Palak Kalra, Advocates.
For Respondents : Mr. Aditya Kumar and Mr. Ila Nath, Advocates for R-2.
Mr. Yash Pal Gupta, Advocate for Liquidator.
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
09.04.2026 : Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned
counsel appearing for the liquidator.
2. This appeal has been filed against an order dated 09.03.2026, by which
order, the adjudicating authority has directed the IA(I.B.C)/689(CH)2022
which was application with respect to scheme under Section 230 of the
Companies Act, 2013 to be heard on 18.03.2026 along with the PUFE
Application.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant has referred to paragraph 2 of the
order, which is as follows:
"2. Today, the matter is listed for seeking clarification from the Applicant/Liquidator as to how the Scheme could be considered for granting approval during the pendency of the PUFE Applications, as the decision therein may affect the eligibility of the Propounder of the Scheme under Section 29A, who is none other than the Promoter/Director of the Corporate Debtor."
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the said issue was even
earlier raised and noticed by the adjudicating authority in its earlier order
dated 05.09.2024 and thereafter scheme application was heard and reserved
on 12.12.2025, however, the matter was again listed for clarification on
09.03.2026. It is submitted by the appellant that there is no ineligibility as
on date under Section 29A(g) of the IBC and the scheme application could
have been very well decided, the PUFE Application and its consequences and
treatment shall be in accordance with Regulation 44A of the IBBI (Insolvency
Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016.
5. We have been informed that the matter is now fixed for 10.04.2026, we
are of the view that there is no impediment in considering and decision of the
application I.A.689/CH/2022, since there is no ineligibility as on date. It
shall be open for the counsel for the parties to make respective submissions
before the adjudicating authority.
With these observations, the appeal is disposed of.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) himanshu/md
Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 635 of 2026 2 of 2
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free