Pan India Consultants Pvt. Ltd vs Amit Chandrakant Shah & Ors
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 339 of 2026
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The principle that the Adjudicating Authority may dismiss a fresh application under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 on the ground that the same assertions were already rejected in an earlier application between the same parties, where the earlier rejection has been affirmed in appeal and by the Supreme Court and no new basis is raised. A party whose contention that the participating interest of the corporate debtor is not an asset of the corporate debtor has been rejected on an earlier application cannot, by a later application repeating that contention, obtain the same declaration; the earlier determination operates against re-agitation of that issue.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE MATTER OF: Pan India Consultants Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellant
Versus
Amit Chandrakant Shah, RP of Frost International Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents
Present: For Appellant : Mr. Angad Mehta, Ms. Bani Brar, Advocates. For Respondents : Mr. Varun Kalra, Mr. Pranav Khanna, Advocates for R-1 (RP). Mr. J. Rajesh, Mr. Dhrupad Vaghani, Ms. Gaytri Mohite, Mr. Md. Arsalan Ahmed, Mr. Yashwardhan Aggarwal, Mr. Ali Abbas Masoodi, Advocates for R- 2. Mr. Anish Chawla, Ms. Suhasini Singh, Advocates for R-4.
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
24.04.2026: Heard learned counsel for the Appellant and learned
counsel for the Respondent. This Appeal has been filed against order dated
20.01.2026 passed by NCLT, Court No.1, Mumbai Bench by which
IA(I.B.C)/197(MB)2026 filed by the Appellant has been rejected. The
Adjudicating Authority in the impugned order in Para 4 has made following
observations:
"4. It is noted that this Tribunal has already dealt with the issue concerning treatment of PI interest of the Corporate Debtor as its asset and the Applicant's right
Cont'd.../ of first refusal vide order dated 12.01.2025 passed in IA 4589 of 2025 and dismissed these contentions. The present application is repetition of assertions already made in IA 4589 of 2025, accordingly, we do not find any merit in the present Application."
2. Learned counsel for the Appellant challenging the order submits that
although the order dated 12.01.2026 was affirmed by this Tribunal as well as
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court but contractual rights of the Appellant has not
been considered and decided.
3. The prayers made in the application IA(I.B.C)/197(MB)2026 has been
noticed in Para 1 of the order. Order dated 12.01.2025 was passed by the
Adjudicating Authority in earlier I.A. No.4589 of 2025, in which I.A. in Para
1, the Adjudicating Authority has noted the substance of the prayers made in
I.A. No.4589 of 2025. Para 1 of the order is as follows:
"1. The present application IA 4589 of 2025 is filed on
4.9.2025 by PAN India Consultants Private Limited ("Applicant") in Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process ("CIRP") of Frost International Limited ("Corporate Debtor") under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ("Code") read with Rule 11 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016 ("Rules") against Respondent No. 1 ("Resolution Professional/RP"), seeking, inter alia, direction in respect of Participating Interest ("PI") of the Corporate Debtor in Oil Block CB-ONN-2010/5 in the Cambay Basin ("Oil Block"), being considered as part of Corporate Debtor's assets in its resolution under the
Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 339 of 2026 2 of 4 Code. The applicant further seeks-a direction to Respondent No. 2 ("CoC/Committee of Creditors") not to consider any proposal for sale of the Corporate Debtor's Participating Interest in the Oil Block without first following the process set out in the agreements signed by and between the Applicant and the Corporate Debtor. The Applicant has made following final prayers, besides interim relief sought in terms of prayer (a) to (d) :
(e) this Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to direct that the PI of the Corporate Debtor in the Oil Block is not an asset of the Corporate Debtor;
(f) this Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to direct Respondent No. 1 to offer the PI of the Corporate Debtor to the Applicant as per Article 13 and/or any other provision of the JOA;
(g) this Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to pass an order directing that the PI of the Corporate Debtor in the Oil Block be excluded from the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process of the Corporate Debtor;
(h) this Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to pass such further orders as may be required/ necessary in the facts and circumstances of the present case."
4. The said I.A. came to be dismissed by the Adjudicating Authority by
order dated 12.01.2025, against which Appellant filed an appeal being
Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.210 of 2025, which was dismissed by this
Tribunal on 30.01.2026. The Appellant also filed an appeal before the Hon'ble
Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 339 of 2026 3 of 4 Supreme Court being Civil Appeal No.3314 of 2026, which came to be
dismissed on 02.04.2026. The issues which were raised by the Appellant in
earlier I.A. having been rejected on 12.01.2025, the Adjudicating Authority
has dismissed IA(I.B.C)/197(MB)2026 relying on the said order. The prayers
which have been made in the IA(I.B.C)/197(MB)2026 could not have been
allowed in view of the earlier order dated 12.01.2025. The Appellant was
praying that the Court should declare that the PI of the Corporate Debtor in
the Oil Block is not an asset of the Corporate Debtor, which argument has
already been rejected in the earlier round. It is also on the on the record that
Appellant has not filed any Expression of Interest or submitted any plan. We,
thus, are of the view that the order of the Adjudicating Authority rejecting the
IA cannot be faulted.
5. Parties submit that application for approval of Resolution Plan is still
pending before the Adjudicating Authority. We are not required to say
anything about the said proceeding. Parties are at liberty to take such remedy
as available in law. Appeal is dismissed.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) Archana/md
Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 339 of 2026 4 of 4
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