Mrs. Raj Rani Gupta vs Jc Flower Asset Reconstruction Pvt. ...
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1567 of 2025
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The appeals are dismissed on the footing that, where the Supreme Court has declined to interfere with an impugned order and the appellant's counsel concedes the position, a challenge to that order cannot succeed before this Tribunal; the Tribunal therefore treats the question of the bankruptcy application's sustainability as foreclosed by that dismissal. Where a personal guarantor's insolvency proceedings under Section 95 of the Code have been initiated and a repayment plan has been rejected by the creditors, a direction by the adjudicating authority allowing the creditor's application for bankruptcy and appointing a bankruptcy trustee is a consequential step that does not warrant interference in appeal.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE MATTER OF: Vikas Goel ...Appellant Versus Bank of Baroda & Anr. ...Respondents
Present: For Appellant : Mr. Naveen Sharma and Mr. Mohit Chaudhary, Advocates.
For Respondents : Mr. Sougat Sinha, Ms. R. Gayathri and Mr. Navneet Kumar, Advocates for R-1.
WITH
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1586 of 2025
IN THE MATTER OF: Anil Goel ...Appellant Versus Bank of Baroda & Anr. ...Respondents
Present: For Appellant : Mr. Naveen Sharma and Mr. Mohit Chaudhary, Advocates.
For Respondents : Mr. Sougat Sinha, Ms. R. Gayathri and Mr. Navneet Kumar, Advocates for R-1.
WITH
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1629 of 2025
IN THE MATTER OF: Sudha Gupta ...Appellant Versus Bank of Baroda & Anr. ...Respondents
Present: For Appellant : Mr. Mohit Chaudhary and Mr. Naveen Sharma, Advocates. For Respondents : Mr. Abhishek Anand, Ms. Palak Kalra Mr. Rajat Gupta and Ms. Ridhima Mehrotra, Advocates for R-2.
Mr. Saurabh Chawla, Advocate for Bankruptcy Trustee in person.
Mr. Sougat Sinha, Ms. R. Gayathri and Mr. Navneet Kumar, Advocates for R-1.
WITH
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1671 of 2025
IN THE MATTER OF: Vishnu Bhagwan ...Appellant Versus Bank of Baroda & Anr. ...Respondents
Present: For Appellant : Mr. Mohit Chaudhary and Mr. Naveen Sharma, Advocates.
For Respondents : Mr. Sougat Sinha, Ms. R. Gayathri and Mr. Navneet Kumar, Advocates for R-1.
WITH
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1672 of 2025
IN THE MATTER OF: Devendra ...Appellant Versus JC Flower Asset Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. ...Respondents
Present: For Appellant : Mr. Mohit Chaudhary and Mr. Naveen Sharma, Advocates.
For Respondents : Mr. Abhishek Anand, Ms. Palak Kalra Mr. Rajat Gupta and Ms. Ridhima Mehrotra, Advocates for R-2.
Ms. Muskan Malhotra and Mr. Sidhant Malik, Advocates for R-1.
Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1567, 1586, 1629, 1671 - 1675 of 2025 2 of 6 Mr. Saurabh Chawla, Advocate for Bankruptcy Trustee in person.
WITH
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1673 of 2025 & I.A. No. 6594 of 2025
IN THE MATTER OF: Prateek Gupta ...Appellant Versus JC Flower Asset Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. ...Respondents
Present: For Appellant : Mr. Mohit Chaudhary and Mr. Naveen Sharma, Advocates.
For Respondents : Mr. Abhishek Anand, Ms. Palak Kalra Mr. Rajat Gupta and Ms. Ridhima Mehrotra, Advocates for R-2.
Ms. Muskan Malhotra and Mr. Sidhant Malik, Advocates for R-1.
Mr. Saurabh Chawla, Advocate for Bankruptcy Trustee in person.
WITH
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1674 of 2025 & I.A. No. 6598 of 2025
IN THE MATTER OF: Paras Gupta ...Appellant Versus JC Flower Asset Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. ...Respondents
Present: For Appellant : Mr. Mohit Chaudhary and Mr. Naveen Sharma, Advocates.
For Respondents : Mr. Abhishek Anand, Ms. Palak Kalra Mr. Rajat Gupta and Ms. Ridhima Mehrotra, Advocates for R-2. Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1567, 1586, 1629, 1671 - 1675 of 2025 3 of 6 Ms. Muskan Malhotra and Mr. Sidhant Malik, Advocates for R-1.
Mr. Saurabh Chawla, Advocate for Bankruptcy Trustee in person.
WITH
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1675 of 2025 & I.A. No. 6602 of 2025
IN THE MATTER OF: Raj Rani Gupta ...Appellant Versus JC Flower Asset Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. ...Respondents
Present: For Appellant : Mr. Mohit Chaudhary and Mr. Naveen Sharma, Advocates.
For Respondents : Mr. Abhishek Anand, Ms. Palak Kalra Mr. Rajat Gupta and Ms. Ridhima Mehrotra, Advocates for R-2.
Ms. Muskan Malhotra and Mr. Sidhant Malik, Advocates for R-1.
Mr. Saurabh Chawla, Advocate for Bankruptcy Trustee in person.
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
11.12.2025 : These appeals have been filed challenging the order passed
by the adjudicating authority (National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), New
Delhi Bench, Court - II) in different IAs filed by the Bank of Baroda (BoB)
seeking initiation of bankruptcy proceedings against the appellant, the
personal guarantor of the company M/s. Our Company Infrastructure
Developers Pvt. Ltd.
Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1567, 1586, 1629, 1671 - 1675 of 2025 4 of 6
2. Appellants had given guarantee for securing the debt of the financial
creditor. The BoB invoked the guarantee and filed application under Section
95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, (for short the 'Code' or the
'IBC') against the appellants, the personal guarantors which applications were
admitted after obtaining a report from the Resolution Professional (RP) under
Section 99 of the IBC.
3. Repayment plan submitted by the personal guarantors was rejected by
the creditors. Adjudicating authority declared the closure of insolvency
proceedings and directed creditor to file an application for bankruptcy.
4. By the impugned order, the adjudicating authority after noticing the
sequence of the event has allowed the application and issued necessary
directions. Bankruptcy trustee has also been appointed by the impugned
order.
5. Aggrieved by the order allowing the bankruptcy application, these
appeals have been filed.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant at the very outset submitted that
some of the appellants have filed the appeal in the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
7. Order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Sudha Gupta' Vs.
'Deepak Mittal' in [Civil Appeal No. 13551/2025] dated 05.12.2025, has
been placed before us by both the parties. Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed
the appeal filed by the appellant by following order:
"Delay in refiling in Diary No.58563/2025 is condoned.
Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1567, 1586, 1629, 1671 - 1675 of 2025 5 of 6 We have heard the learned senior counsel for the appellant(s) and learned counsel for the respondent(s)/caveator(s).
We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order(s). Hence, the Civil Appeals are dismissed. Pending application(s) shall stand disposed of."
8. Learned counsel for the appellant fairly submitted that in view of the
order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the appellant cannot
successfully challenge the impugned order.
9. We are of the view that proceedings under Section 95 of the IBC initiated
against the personal guarantors, the appellant having been not interfered with
and the repayment plan having been rejected, direction passed by the
adjudicating authority allowing the bankruptcy application is only a
consequential step which does not warrant any interference.
We thus do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order.
All the appeals are dismissed.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) himanshu/md
Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1567, 1586, 1629, 1671 - 1675 of 2025 6 of 6
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