Myotic Trading Private Limited vs Deepak Maini & Ors

IN THE MATTER OF: Myotic Trading Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellant Versus Deepak Maini, RP of Amzen Transportation Industries Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents

Present: For Appellant : Mr. Sunil Fernandes, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Pranav Sachdeva, Mr. Jatin Bhardwaj, Mr. Rohit P. Ram and Ms. Diksha Dadu, Advocates.

For Respondents : Mr. Abhishek Anand, Mr. Karan Kohli and Ms. Palak Kalra, Advocates for the RP.

Mr. Anand Verma, Mr. Ashish Chowdhury and Mr. Akash Agarwal, Advocates for R-3.

Mr. Akash Tandon, Advocate for R-7.

Mr. Sumesh Dhawan, Ms. Vatsala Kak and Mr. Shaurya Shyam, Advocates for R-4.

Mr. Brijesh Kumar Tamber and Mr. Prateek Kushwaha, Advocates for UCO Bank.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

17.04.2025 : Heard counsel for the appellant, learned counsel appearing

for Respondent No. 4 and learned counsel for the UCO Bank as well as the

Resolution Professional.

2. This appeal has been filed against an order dated 26.03.2025 passed

by the adjudicating authority in I.A. No. 1240/ND/2025. The appeal has been

filed by the appellant questioning the order to the limited extent that it has

not continued the interim order dated 17.03.2025 which was already passed

by the adjudicating authority in the same I.A. No. 1240/ND/2025. The order indicates that adjudicating authority itself has fixed 02.04.2025 for

arguments on maintainability.

3. We have informed that arguments on maintainability has already been

concluded and parties have been asked to file their Written Submissions. The

interim order which was passed by the adjudicating authority on 17.03.2025

was only to the effect that CoC shall not proceed with the challenge

mechanism during pendency of the application.

4. Learned Counsel for the respondent has also raised the issue that

appellant is no more eligible in view of consortium partner having exited and

the CoC is already considering and voting is in process on the said issue, the

eligibility of Respondent No. 3 which was earlier negated has now been

accepted by the CoC, which is a challenge by the appellant before the

adjudicating authority on I.A. No. 1240/2025.

5. We are of the view that in view of the facts of the present case, further

proceeding with challenge mechanism can take place after decision is taken

on the maintainability of the application. Learned counsel for Respondent

No. 3 submits that eligibility of the Respondent No. 3 has not yet been heard

by the adjudicating authority.

6. Be that as it may, we are of the view that the interim order 17.03.2025

that CoC may not proceed with the challenge mechanism ought to have been

continued till the next date when the adjudicating authority was hearing the

matter now the matter has been fixed for 23.04.2025, we are of the view that

till 23.04.2025 the interim protection shall continue.

7. We, however, make it clear that further proceeding shall take place in

pursuance of the order passed by the adjudicating authority in the pending Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 598 of 2025 2 of 3 application. It goes without saying that it shall be open for the adjudicating

authority to pass any order including orders varying on modifying or

continuing the interim order.

8. We make it clear that we have not entered into the merits of the issues

and we are not making any observations regarding merits of the case of both

the parties.

Appeal disposed of accordingly.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Arun Baroka] Member (Technical) himanshu/nn

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 598 of 2025 3 of 3