Multi Talent Human Resources Private ... vs Mr. Surendera Raj Ganj & Ors
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 48 of 2025
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal declined to entertain an appeal against approval of a resolution plan where the appellant's own claim application remained pending before the Adjudicating Authority, and where the earlier order had directed that the entire plan amount be held in an interest-bearing account, with the claims of operational creditors to be decided separately and distributed only as and when adjudicated. Because the appellant's entitlement is preserved and will depend on the outcome of that pending application, the appeal against the plan approval order was disposed of without interference.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE MATTER OF: Multi Talent Human Resources Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellant
Versus
Surendra Raj Gang & Ors. ...Respondents
Present: For Appellant : Mr. Arjun Sheth, Mr. Anup Kumar D. Sayare, Ms. Kriti Kothari, Advocates. For Respondents : Mr. Vaijayant Paliwal, Ms. Tanya Chib, Advocates for R-1. Mr. Ankur Mittal, Ms. Muskan Jain, Advocates for NARCL.
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
31.01.2025: This appeal has been filed against order dated 04.10.2024
passed by NCLT, Principal Bench, New Delhi in IA No.37 of 2024 by which
order the Adjudicating Authority has approved the Resolution Plan.
Appellant's case is that Appellant has provided service to the Corporate
Debtor and has already filed IA No.4177 of 2024 claiming an amount of
Rs.5,65,02,274/-. It is submitted that the said application is still pending,
however, the Resolution Plan has been approved.
2. We have perused the impugned order. In Para 11.3 of the order, the
Adjudicating Authority has noted an earlier order dated 10.09.2024. Para 9
of said order provides as follows:
Cont'd.../ 2
"9. The members of the CoC represented by Mr. Niranjan Reddy, Ld. Sr. Counsel and Mr. Ankur Mittal, Ld. Counsel fairly state that the entire plan amount may be kept aside in an interest bearing account. All applications including claims of Operational Creditors can be decided separately. The Application for approval of the Resolution Plan should be decided. The claim amount as adjudicated should be distributed to them as per the order of the Adjudicating Authority. In terms of the Resolution Plan the balance will go to the benefit of the CoC members as per their entitlement."
3. Observation in Para 9 that "all applications including claims of the
Operational Creditors can be decided separately" obviously covers the
application filed by the Appellant also. Thus, the entire resolution amount
has already been deposited in the interest bearing account and in Para 11.4,
the Adjudicating Authority has directed as follows:
"11.4. In this view as and when the plan amount is tendered, we direct the RP to deposit the entire plan amount of Rs. 295,14,95,611/-(Rupees Two Hundred Ninety-Five Crores Fourteen Lakhs Ninety-Five Thousand Six Hundred and Eleven) in a high interest- bearing account to be opened with State Bank of India, CGO Complex, New Delhi. The claim amount as and when adjudicated in favour of the applicants in these pending applications will be distributed to them in terms and as per orders of this Adjudicating Authority and the balance if any will go to the benefit of the CoC members. We only confirm what has been agreed by
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.48 of 2025 3
the members of CoC and applicants, as submitted by their counsels in our proceedings dated 10.09.2024."
4. In view of the aforesaid, there is no reason to entertain this appeal. The
Appellant's application IA No.4177 of 2024 has not yet been closed and the
Appellant's entitlement shall depend on the decision in IA No.4177 of 2024.
With these observations, we dispose of this appeal.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)
[Arun Baroka] Member (Technical) Archana/nn
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.48 of 2025
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