Nitin Mittal vs Mr. Ritesh Mahajan & Ors

Nitin Mittal ....Appellant Vs. Ritesh R. Mahajan Resolution Professional of Envirant ...Respondents Contructions Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. For Appellant Mr. Gaurav Mitra, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Suyash Pande, Mr. Vishwajeet Pandey, Ms. Nikita Capoor, Ms. Lavanya Pathak, Advocates. For Respondents Mr. Ramchandra Madan, Mr. Tushar Nigam, Mr. Himanshu Yadav, Ms. Srividya Venkat, Advocates for R3 Mr. Prakhar Tandon, Advocate for R1.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

12.08.2026: This Appeal is filed against an order dated 08.06.2026

passed by Ld. NCLT, Mumbai in IA No.42 of 2025 in CP No.1182 of 2022 vide

which the plan submitted by the Respondent No.3 was approved by the

Learned Adjudicating Authority. It is the submission of the Learned Senior

Counsel for the Appellant if one peruse the clauses relating to funding of the

plan, it would show funding is primarily based upon a Comfort Letter dated

15.09.2024 wherein the Appellant had proposed to finance the Successful

Resolution Applicant of an amount up to Rs.19 Crores; the value of plan being

Rs.21 Crores. It is the submission of the Learned Senior Counsel for the

Appellant even prior to plan approval order, the Appellant has withdrawn his

comfort letter dated 15.09.2024. In this context, the Respondent had even filed

a Special Civil Suit No.355 of 2026 before the Ld. Civil Judge, Senior Division,

Pune on 30.01.2026 seeking specific performance of letter dated 15.09.2024

and with a prayer to direct the Appellant to further deposit an amount of Rs.10

Crores in addition to the amount already provided for to the Respondent. Of 2

course, the said suit is being contested by the Appellant herein. It is thus the

submission the plan be rejected and order for approval of plan be set aside.

However, at this stage, the Learned Counsel for the Respondent No.3 has

rather pointed out an Intervention Application No.76 of 2026 was moved by

the Appellant herein before the Learned NCLT with similar prayer, but was

dismissed on the ground the dispute regarding financial arrangement between

the Appellant and the Respondent No.3 does not fall within the purview of the

IBC. Further, the Learned Counsel for the Respondent has shown us clauses

of funding of the plan viz 4.5.1 and 4.5.2 at Page 7 of the impugned order itself.

Admittedly, the time limit for the implementation of the plan is 06.09.2026

and the Resolution Plan itself gives an alternative to the Respondent to provide

for funding in case the Appellant backs out. Thus, as the Resolution Plan is

approved and as the financial dispute between the parties is pending before

the Ld. Civil Court, hence, leaving all rights and contentions of the parties

open before the Ld. Civil Court, we do not find merit in this Appeal and

accordingly, it is dismissed. Pending applications viz IA No.5645 of 2026, IA

No.5644 of 2026 and IA No.5602 of 2026 are also disposed of.

[Justice Yogesh Khanna] Officiating Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)

(Ajai Das Mehrotra) Member (Technical) Anjali/md

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1463 of 2026