Orissa Metaliks Private Limited vs Avil Jerome Menezes

IN THE MATTER OF: Orissa Metaliks Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellants Versus Avil Jerome Menezes, ...Respondents RP of Future Enterprises Ltd. & Ors.

Present: For Appellant : Mr. Krishnendu Datta Sr. Advocate with Mr. Prateek Kumar, Mr. Shounak Mitra, Ms. Raveena Rai and Mr. Siddhant Grover, Advocates. For Respondents : Ms. Pooja Mahajan and Mr. Karan Vir Khosla, Advocates for R1/ RP. Mr. Abhinav Vasisth Sr. Advocate with Mr. Abhishek Swaroop, Mr. Anupam Prakash, Ms. Kirti Talreja and Ms. Abhilasha Sharma, Advocates for R2.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

08.09.2025: Heard Ld. Counsel for the Appellant and Shri Vasisth Sr.

Counsel appearing for the CoC as well as Ld. Counsel for the Resolution

Professional.

2. This application has been filed vide I.A. No. 5413 of 2025 in CA (AT)

(Ins) No. 1022 of 2025. This application has been filed praying for following

reliefs:-

"PRAYER In light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to:

1. Declare and clarify that with the conduct of the e-challenge mechanism on 18th July 2025, the directions of the Hon'ble Special Bench, as upheld by this Hon'ble Tribunal vide its order dated 25 July 2025, have been fully implemented and the process has attained finality;

2. Declare and clarify that the order of the Hon'ble Special Bench as upheld by this Hon'ble Tribunal vide its order dated 25 July 2025 did not envisage the conduct of any second or any subsequent challenge mechanism;

3. Declare that the decision taken by the CoC in their 38th CoC meeting for conducting the second further e-challenge bad and illegal;

4. Stay the conduct or initiation of any second or further e- challenge mechanism as initiated pursuant to the 38th CoC meeting until the final hearing and disposal of this application; and

5. Direct the Respondent No. 1 and 2 to take necessary steps towards completion of the resolution process on the basis of the outcome of the e-challenge mechanism on 18th July 2025. Pass such further order as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts of the present case."

3. The appeal which was filed by the appellant being CA (AT)(Ins) No. 1022

of 2025 challenging the order dated 16.06.2025 passed by Adjudicating

Authority had been finally disposed of by this Tribunal on 25.07.2025. In the

appeal, this Tribunal did not stay the process which commenced consequent

the order 16.06.2025 and the appeal was heard and orders reserved on

16.07.2025. This Tribunal decided the appeal on 25.07.2025 and in

paragraph 24 to 28 of the order noted as follows:-

"24. We thus are of the view that NCLT has rightly come to answer the questions in the facts of the present case, CoC's decision to permit R-3 to submit a revised plan is in accordance with law. We thus do not find any infirmity in the order of the adjudicating authority dated 16.06.2025, answers given by the adjudicating authority to the questions framed need no interference.

25. Before we close, we need to refer to memo filed on behalf of the CoC dated 23.07.2025 (after mentioning), where in paragraph 3 of the memo, following has been stated:

2 of 4 I.A. No. 5413 of 2025 in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1022 of 2025 "3. Accordingly, the E-Challenge Mechanism for Cluster 3 Assets of the Corporate Debtor was conducted on 18.07.2025 at 12:00 P.M, with a base bid of INR 85 crores, wherein:

(i) Both prospective resolution applicants, i.e., Uniworth / Respondent No.3 and OMPL / the Appellant, participated.

(ii) Uniworth's last bid is for INR 146 crores, payable within a period of sixty (60) days.

(iii) On the other hand, OMPL proposed a bid of INR 148 crores, payable within a period of sixty (60) days.

26. In paragraph 3 of the above memo, it has been brought on the record that both appellant and R-3 participated in E- Challenge Mechanism conducted on 18.07.2025 where appellant's last bid was Rs.148 crore and R3 last bid was Rs.146 crore.

27. The above vindicate the decision of the CoC taken to permit R-3 and the appellant to submit revised resolution plan.

28. In view of our foregoing discussions and conclusion, we do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 16.06.2025.

The appeal is dismissed. The interim order stand discharged."

4. This application has been filed in this Tribunal on 04.09.2025 where

the second negotiation process dated 02.09.2025 has sought to be

questioned. The appeal having already been decided on 25.07.2025 and the

subject matter of the application being a subsequent event that is issuance of

second negotiation process of 02.09.2025, we are of the view that the prayers

made in the application cannot be entertained in the appeal which has

already been decided. Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that under the

process issued on 02.09.2025 now the 10.09.2025 is date fixed for participate

in challenge process where appellant has already been declared as the highest

bidder held on 18.07.2025. In event the application is not entertained by this

3 of 4 I.A. No. 5413 of 2025 in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1022 of 2025 Tribunal in the appeal which has been decided, an opportunity be given to the

appellant to challenge the second negotiation process before the Adjudicating

Authority. As observed above, the second negotiation process have been

issued on 02.09.2025 that cannot be made subject matter of consideration in

appeal. It is open for the appellant to approach the Adjudicating Authority by

filing appropriate application questioning the challenge process 02.09.2025.

Appellant is permitted to file an application within three days from today

which application may be considered by the Adjudicating Authority on

16.09.2025 on which date we permit both the parties to appear before

Adjudicating Authority.

5. Further steps in continuation of the notice dated 02.09.2025 shall be

taken in accordance of the order of Adjudicating Authority to be passed in the

application.

6. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits

of the application and on the merits of second negotiation process dated

02.09.2025.

Application is disposed of accordingly.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) harleen/NN

4 of 4 I.A. No. 5413 of 2025 in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1022 of 2025