Pankaj R. Majithia vs Vikas Kasliwal

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 958 of 2025 IN THE MATTER OF: Pankaj Majithia, RP of Shree Ram Urban Infrastructure Ltd ...Appellant

Versus

Vikas Kasliwal & Ors. ...Respondents

Present: For Appellant : Mr. Anuj Tiwari, K. Ahuja, Vaibhav Vats, Adv. For Respondents : Mr. Gautam Narayan, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Rohit Gupta, Aakashi Lodha, Adv. for R1 Mr. Kunal Godhwani, Prateek Gupta, Raghav T., for I.A No. 4618 of 2025

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

Per: Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain: (Oral)

03.09.2025 : This appeal is against the order dated 03.07.2025 by which

an application bearing I.A No. 1180 of 2025 filed by Vikas Kasliwal, Ex-

promoter and director of Shree Ram Urban Infrastructure Ltd. (CD) against

the Appellant, namely, Pankaj R Majithia, RP appointed vide order dated

22.12.2022 replacing the erstwhile RP, namely, Shri Gopal Choudhary, has

been allowed and M/s Truvisory Insolvency Professional Pvt. Ltd. has been

appointed as the new RP.

2. In brief, the CD, namely, Shree Ram Urban Infrastructure Ltd. was

admitted into CIRP vide order dated 06.11.2019 and Shri Gopal Choudhary

was appointed as the IRP at that time and was later on confirmed as RP vide

order dated 06.01.2022.

3. Shorn of unnecessary details, I.A No. 1180 of 2025 was filed by the ex-

promoter and director of the CD in which the following prayers were made:-

4. This application was contested by the Appellant by filing reply. The

Tribunal recorded reasons in paras 6, 7, 8 & 9 of the impugned order for

holding that the present appellant has been remiss in performing of his duties

as RP, enjoined upon him under the provisions of the Code and thus replaced

him with the new RP.

5. Aggrieved against this order, the present appeal has been filed in which

the Appellant has made a prayer for setting aside the impugned order.

6. However, during the course of hearing, new RP, namely, M/s Truvisory

Insolvency Professional Pvt. Ltd. also filed an I.A No. 4618 of 2025 in which

it has made a prayer for a direction to the Appellant or the applicant in the

said application to act as RP for the compliance of the provisions of the Code

and Regulations made thereunder and to manage the day to day operations

of the CD and for the purpose of representing the CD in the cases listed before

the different Courts.

7. Mr. Anuj Tiwary, Adv. appearing for the Appellant in this appeal has,

during the course of hearing, restricted his prayer to expunging certain

adverse remarks made against the Appellant, while allowing the application

by the impugned order, instead of pursuing the prayer made in the appeal for

setting aside / quashing the impugned order as it is.

8. Counsel for the Appellant has submitted that the Tribunal has

committed a factual error in observing in Para 7 of the impugned order that

I.A No. 872 of 2025, having been filed by the Appellant on 12.06.2022, to

restrain the authorities under Mhad Act was not pursued by it though he

came to know about the notice dated 18.05.2023. In this regard, he has

drawn our attention to Annexure 2 appended with the appeal which is the

case status, obtained from the website of the Tribunal, as per which I.A

No.872 of 2025 filed on 12.06.2022 was scrutinized by the office of the

Tribunal on 14.02.2025 and defects were raised. The Appellant removed the

defects and refiled the same on same date which has been accepted by the

registry of the Tribunal on 17.02.2025 as defect free.

9. It is further submitted that after the defects were removed on

17.02.2025, the application was listed before the Tribunal on 19.02.2025. It

is thus submitted that there was no lapse on the part of the Appellant in not

pursuing the application.

10. Secondly, it is submitted that notice of the Mhad dated 18.05.2023 was

not personally served upon the Appellant. In this regard, he has drawn our

attention to the letter dated 07.02.2024 which has been served by the

Appellant through his counsel Arshil Ajay Shah in which it is averred that the

Appellant came to know about the notice dated 18.05.2023 in routine

inspection of the building on which it was affixed by the Mhad authorities. It

is thus submitted that no fault can be attributed to the appellant in this

regard and observation made in para 6 of the impugned order are also

patently erroneous.

11. He has further submitted that in para 9(b) of the impugned order, there

is a reference of the order passed by the IBBI dated 24.06.2025 which was

not before the Court because the order in the application bearing I.A No. 1180

of 2025 was reserved on 17.06.2025, though it was pronounced on

03.07.2025, therefore, no opportunity was given to the Appellant to contest

the said allegation which has been noticed in para 9(b) of the impugned order.

12. On the other hand, Mr. Gautam Narayan, Sr. Adv., appearing on behalf

of the Applicant in the application /Respondent No. 1 herein, has submitted

that the Appellant has not come to the court with clean hands and is guilty

of suppressio veri and suggestio falsi because in the notice dated 07.02.2024,

purported to have been issued through his counsel it has been averred that

the Appellant came to know about the notice in the routine inspection which

was alleged to have been pasted on the said building but no date has been

given about the said inspection and the alleged knowledge of the Appellant

rather it is submitted that the Appellant himself sent a letter dated

04.07.2023 in which he has made a reference of the notice dated 18.05.2023

which has been mentioned as "received by us on 04.07.2023". It is submitted

that there is no evidence that letter dated 04.07.2023 was even sent to Mhad. As a matter of fact, from the letter dated 04.07.2023, Counsel for Respondent

No. 1 has tried to show that the Appellant himself has admitted that he had

received the letter on 04.07.2023 which means that his assertion in the letter

dated 07.02.2024 was false in which it has been mentioned through his

counsel that the Appellant came to know about the notice which was alleged

to have been pasted on the buildings and came to his notice per chance in

routine inspection.

13. In respect of I.A No. 872 of 2025, Counsel for Respondent No. 1 has

submitted that if the application was alleged to have been filed on 12.06.2024

then it was the duty of the Appellant to enquire from the registry about the

status of the application. Allegation against the Appellant is that he was not

pursuing the same, meaning thereby, he did not even care about the

application after filing it and to know about its status as to whether the said

application is lying in defect or it has been scrutinized or not.

14. In respect of Para 9(b), it is submitted that even if the order dated

24.06.2025, which is passed by the IBBI, has been taken note of by the

Tribunal after reserving the order, the Appellant has not denied the fact that

IBBI has found his guilty on three counts i.e. failure to take custody and

control, failure to seek necessary approvals and allowing auction without

proper process.

15. It is submitted that the Tribunal has taken judicial notice of this order

dated 24.06.2025 because this order was sent by IBBI to the Tribunal. Para

3.6 read as under;-.

"A copy of this order shall also be forwarded to the Registrar of the Principal Bench of the NCLT, New Delhi for information"

16. We have heard Counsel for the parties and after examining the record

and their respective submissions, are of the considered opinion that there is no merit in the submission made by the Appellant for expunging the alleged

adverse remarks contained in para 6,7,8 and 9 because, firstly, about notice

dated 18.05.2023, the Appellant has alleged that it was not served upon it

whereas in the letter dated 04.07.2023, written by the Appellant himself, it

has been mentioned by him in the subject of the letter that "your notice dated

18.05.2023 received by us on 04.07.2023 ref no. EE/GS/DE-III/2107/2023"

falsifies the stand of the Appellant that notice dated 18.05.2023 was not

received and also raises the question about his integrity because in the notice

dated 07.02.203, which was sent by the Appellant through his counsel, he

has mentioned that the said notice was seen by the Appellant per chance

pasted on the building during his routine inspection. He did not deliberately

give the date on which date the said inspection was carried out. Secondly, the

application bearing I.A No. 872 of 2025, which was filed on 12.06.2024, was

not pursued by the Appellant because after filing the application he did not

care to enquire about its status from the registry. He has only relied upon the

case status from the website of the Tribunal in which it has been mentioned

that the defects in the application were mentioned for the first time on

14.02.2025. Since, the company has been handed over to the RP alone to run

the same with the aid of various agencies which he can hire, it was expected

of him to have pursued the application filed diligently so that the Application

may be listed for orders, therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the

Appellant has been negligent in this regard as well.

17. In so far as the issue of following the principles of natural justice are

concerned, in respect of observation made in para 9(b) of the impugned order,

it is suffice to say that the authenticity of order passed on 24.06.2025 by the

IBBI has not been challenged by the Appellant, therefore, once a fact is not denied, it hardly makes any difference if the opportunity of hearing was given

or not.

18. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion, all the three issues raised by

the Appellant are repelled and it is therefore, held that the Tribunal has

committed no error in making the alleged observations against the Appellant

while passing the impugned order.

19. With these observations, we do not find any merit in the present appeal

and the same is hereby dismissed.

20. Since, we have dismissed the appeal, therefore, I.A No. 4618 of 2025

has also become infructuous because the direction which has been sought in

the application need not be issued as the applicant has already been

appointed as the RP in place of present appellant. No Costs.

I.A.s, if any, pending is/are hereby closed.

[Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain] Member (Judicial)

[Naresh Salecha] Member (Technical)

Sc/RR