Pradeep Kishan Hirani vs Kotak Mahindra Bank (Coc) & Anr

IN THE MATTER OF: Pradeep Kishan Hirani, ...Appellant (Suspended Director & Shareholder of Kimaya Fashions Pvt. Ltd.)

Versus

Kotak Mahindra Bank (COC) & Anr. ...Respondents

Present: For Appellant : Dr. Pankaj Garg, Mr. Yaksh Garg, Ms. Kalpana, Ms. Yashna Ahuja, Ms. Muskaan Chawla, Advocates For Respondents : Mr. Pradeep Kumar, Advocate for SRA. Mr. Sourajit Sinha, Advocate for R-1.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

05.12.2025: This appeal is preferred by the suspended Director of the

CD. Introducing its case, the learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that

as CIRP was commenced against the CD at the instance of an Operational

Creditor. Subsequently, the CoC was constituted comprising only one Financial

Creditor. However, the Operational Creditor who initiated the CIRP process did

not even prefer a claim before the RP. Be that as it may, on 16.01.2024 the

suspended Director of the CD who is also the Personal Guarantor for the loan

has settled the entire dues of the Financial Creditor. However, four days later

the one member CoC, after having received a sum due from the Personal

Guarantor proceeded to approve the resolution plan. In these circumstances,

the appellant took out I.A No. 3719 of 2024 before the Adjudicating Authority

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1912 of 2025 -2-

to terminate the insolvency proceedings. While things stand thus, on

30.10.2025 the Adjudicating Authority had reserved its orders vis-à-vis the

approval of the plan under Section 31 of IBC. And the Adjudicating Authority

has not taken any decision in I.A. No. 3719 of 2024 as yet.

2. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that he merely seeks a

direction vide this appeal that the Adjudicating Authority might not take a

decision in I.A. 13 of 2024 which the RP had filed for approval of the plan till

his own I.A. 3719 of 2024 is disposed of.

3. Mr. Pradeep Kumar, Advocate for SRA join the proceedings and

introduced himself as the Counsel for the SRA which is not arrayed as the

party in this proceeding. Learned Counsel submitted that same appellant has

preferred CA No. 357 of 2023 challenging the order admitting the CD to CIRP

under Section 9 wherein an order of stay has been passed by the Tribunal and

which order has since been subsequently vacated.

4. It fitness of things the RP should have been impleaded. We don't propose

to issue notice to the other side since the prayer is limited. The appellant after

all seeks a hearing in his I.A. 3719 of 2024 before the Adjudicating Authority

takes a decision in I.A. 13 of 2024. Inasmuch as the appellant contend that he

has already paid the only financial creditor it would be only just fair and

reasonable that his prayer is required to be considered.

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1912 of 2025 -3-

5. This Tribunal now disposes this appeal with a direction to the

Adjudicating Authority to hear and dispose I.A. 3719 of 2024, which apparently

is pending for more than a year now, before it passes its orders in I.A. 13 of

2024.

6. It is clarified that the Adjudicating Authority is at absolute liberty to

decide I.A. 3719 of 2024 as per its own merit.

[Justice N Seshasayee] Member (Judicial)

[Mr. Indevar Pandey] Member (Technical)

SA/sk

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1912 of 2025