Pulkit Gupta vs Irp Keshav Khaneja
- CitationComp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1335 of 2025
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal's reasoning rests on the following principle: where an appellant, having been proposed as an interim resolution professional but not appointed, states that he does not seek the appointment, and where the adverse observations against him were made without any opportunity to answer the objections raised, the appellate body may dispose of the appeal without interfering with the impugned order while declaring that adverse observations in that order shall not be treated as adverse to the appellant for any purpose, and that any observation on his conduct or character is not a final observation and the disposal is no reflection on his conduct or character.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1335 of 2025 & I.A. No. 5216 of 2025 IN THE MATTER OF: Pulkit Gupta ...Appellant
Versus
Keshav Khaneja, IRP Gensol Engineering Ltd. & Anr. ...Respondent
Present: For Appellant : Mr. Abhijeet Sinha, Sr. Adv. with Prateek Khanna, Sanskriti Dixit, Heena Kochar, Adv. For Respondents : None With Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1338 of 2025 & I.A. No. 5223 of 2025 IN THE MATTER OF: Pulkit Gupta ...Appellant
Versus
Keshav Khaneja, IRP Gensol EV Lease Ltd. & Anr. ...Respondent
Present: For Appellant : Mr. Abhijeet Sinha, Sr. Adv. with Prateek Khanna, Sanskriti Dixit, Heena Kochar, Adv. For Respondents : None
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
03.11.2025 : These two appeals have been filed by the Appellant
challenging the order dated 13.06.2025 passed in CP (IB) No.195/ AHM/2025
an CP (IB) No. 199/AHM/2025 by which the Adjudicating Authority while
admitting Section 7 application filed by the Financial Creditor (Respondent
No. 2), however, had not appointed the Appellant who was proposed as IRP.
2. The Appellant is aggrieved by only that part of the order where
observations have been made against the Appellant has filed the present
appeal.
3. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant at very out set submits that the Appellant
is not interested to be appointed as IRP in the CIRP of the CD, however,
adverse observation made may harm the interest of the Appellant.
4. We considered the submissions of the Appellant and perused the
record.
5. The objections were raised by the CD to the appointment of the
Appellant on the basis of which the Adjudicating Authority did not appoint
the Appellant. Admittedly, the Appellant had no opportunity to meet the
objections raised by the CD. In view of the fact that the Appellant has clearly
stated that he does not intend to claim its right to be appointed as IRP in the
CIRP of both the CDs.
6. We are of the view that any observation made in the order adverse to
the appellant be not considered to be any adverse observation against the
appellant for any purpose.
7. We observe that any observation made by the NCLT on the conduct or
character of the Appellant shall not be taken as a final observation in other
word disposal of this appeal will be no reflection on the character or conduct
of the Appellant as such.
8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, both the appeals are
disposed of without interfering with the order impugned.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] The Chairperson
[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)
Sheetal/Manu
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