Rajat Bhushan Srivastva vs One Group

IN THE MATTER OF: Ms. Reena ...Appellants Versus One Group & Anr. ...Respondents

Present: For Applicant : Mr. Arijit Prasad Sr. Advocate with Mr. Nipun Gautam, Mr. Deepak and Ms. Ankita, Advocates. For Respondents : Mr. Harish Taneja, Advocate for RP a/w Riya Kaur Arora. Ms. Anuja Pethia and Mr. Rishabh Govial, Advocates for SRA. WITH Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 55 of 2025

IN THE MATTER OF: Rajat Bhushan Srivastava ...Appellants Versus One Group & Anr. ...Respondents

Present: For Applicant : Mr. Arijit Prasad Sr. Advocate with Mr. Nipun Gautam, Mr. Deepak and Ms. Ankita, Advocates. For Respondents : Mr. Harish Taneja, Advocate for RP a/w Riya Kaur Arora. Ms. Anuja Pethia and Mr. Rishabh Govial, Advocates for SRA.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

13.01.2025: These two appeals have been filed against the same order

dated 13.12.2024 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi

Principal Bench by which an application filed by the SRA for impleadment in

the IA filed by the applicant has been allowed.

2. Ld. Counsel for the appellant challenging the order passed by

Adjudicating Authority dated 13.12.2024 submits that the applicant had filed

their applications bearing nos. 4906/2023 and 2661/2024, where SRA has

been permitted to be impleaded without appellant having been given any

opportunity to oppose the Impleadment. Ld. Counsel for the appellant referred

to the order passed by this Tribunal dated 08.05.2024 where the resolution

plan has been sent back for resubmission by the SRA. It is submitted that the

applicant who had filed their belated application for accepting their belated

claims was required to be given opportunity before passing an order for

impleadment.

3. We have heard counsel for the appellant and perused the record. The

application which was filed by the applicant are application to accept their

belated claims which could not be filed before the approval of the earlier plan

by CoC at the earlier round. From the material brought on the record it does

appear that Adjudicating Authority has issued notice on the application on

26.11.2024 when the notice was issued to the applicant on the application filed

by the SRA for SRA to be impleaded it is well within the power of the applicant

to file any reply, if any.

4. We thus are the view that direction for Adjudicating Authority to implead

the SRA in the applications filed by the appellant for accepting their belated

claims does not warrant any interference. SRA who has been asked to resubmit

the resolution plan is the effected party with regard to admission of any claims

2 of 3 Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 54 & 55 of 2025 of the applicant and it was required to he heard on any claims applications by

which belated claims were sought to be prayed to be accepted.

5. We however make it clear that by virtue of impleadment of SRA there is

no expression of merits of the application by the Adjudicating Authority which

are still open to be considered and decided in accordance with law.

6. Ld. Counsel for the Respondents submits that orders have already been

reserved on 10.01.2025, which is not

the issue to be considered at this stage.

With these observations, both the appeals are dismissed.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)

[Arun Baroka] Member (Technical) harleen/KM

3 of 3 Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 54 & 55 of 2025