Pratibha Singh vs Sunil Kumar

IN THE MATTER OF: Jitendra Singh, Personal Guarantor ...Appellant

Versus

Sunil Kumar, Resolution Professional ...Respondent

With

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 318 of 2025

IN THE MATTER OF: Pratibha Singh, Personal Guarantor ...Appellant

Versus

Sunil Kumar, Resolution Professional ...Respondent

Present: For Appellant : Mr. Nitesh Shrivastava, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Rachit Sharma, Advocate.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

20.02.2025: These two appeals have been filed by the Personal

Guarantors challenging the order dated 04.02.2025 passed by the NCLT,

Jaipur Bench. Facts and sequence of events in both the appeals being same,

it is sufficient to refer to facts in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.317 of 2025

for deciding both the appeals.

2. Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.317 of 2025 is filed against order dated

04.02.2025 by which order the Adjudicating Authority has accepted the report

submitted under Section 112 by the Resolution Professional and taking the

Cont'd.../ 2

same on record, rejected the IA No.20/JPR/2025 filed by the Appellant as

infructuous.

3. In the present case, the Appellant was required to submit a repayment

plan which he submitted before the Resolution Professional and the said plan

was placed before the CoC. Secured Financial Creditor has sent an email to

the Appellant on 16.12.2024 communicating that repayment plan submitted

is not acceptable and the Appellant - Personal Guarantor was advised to

revise the proposal substantially keeping the value of the security.

Subsequent to said email, the Appellant claim that revised proposal was

submitted and an application was filed seeking extension of time for

submitting repayment plan which application has been dismissed as

infructuous by the Adjudicating Authority by the impugned order and report

submitted by the Resolution Professional has been accepted under Section

112.

4. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that in the present case, the

Adjudicating Authority ought to have first considered the application filed by

the Appellant for extension of time for submitting revised repayment plan but

the Adjudicating Authority has first accepted the report filed by the Resolution

Professional and thereafter dismissed the applications as infructuous.

5. Learned counsel for the Resolution Professional submits that there is

no objection if a limited time is given to the Appellant to submit the revised

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.317 and 318 of 2025 3

repayment plan, which may be placed before the CoC for consideration and

thereafter appropriate steps may be taken.

6. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties

and perused the record.

7. From the order impugned, it is clear that application which was filed by

the Appellant for extension of time for submission of revised repayment plan

has been dismissed as infructuous after accepting the report of Resolution

Professional filed under Section 112. We are of the view that the Adjudicating

Authority ought to have first considered the application for extension of time

which was filed by the Personal Guarantor for submitting revised repayment

plan. Without considering the said application, the Adjudicating Authority

has first accepted the report filed by the Resolution Professional under Section

112 and then rejected application as infructuous.

8. We have already noticed the submission of the Resolution Professional

that there can be no objection in giving some limited time to the Appellant to

submit revised repayment plan, which may be placed before the CoC and

thereafter, report may be submitted before the Adjudicating Authority.

9. Considering the aforesaid, we are of the view that ends of justice be

served in setting aside order dated 04.02.2025 and granting two weeks' time

to the Appellant to submit revised repayment plan. After receipt of the

repayment plan, the Resolution Professional shall take appropriate steps and

place the same before the CoC and shall complete the process in further 60

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.317 and 318 of 2025 4

days and submit a fresh report before the Adjudicating Authority for passing

appropriate orders. With these directions, we dispose of both the appeals.

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

case and it is for the Adjudicating Authority to take appropriate decision in

accordance with law.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)

[Arun Baroka] Member (Technical) Archana/nn

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.317 and 318 of 2025