Rajeev Gupta vs & Ors

IN THE MATTER OF: Rajeev Gupta ...Appellant(s)

Versus

Brijesh Singh Bhadauriya, Erstwhile RP of RCI Industries and Technologies Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondent(s)

Present: For Appellant(s) : Mr. Abhishek Garg and Mr. Mehul Gupta, Advocates.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Abhishek Anand, Mr. Karan Kohli and Ms. Ridhima Mehrotra, Advocates for RP.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

15.01.2026 Heard Ld. Counsel appearing for the Appellant, Counsel

appearing for the RP as well as Counsel appearing for the SRA. This appeal

has been filed by the Suspended Directors of the CD challenging the order

dated 09.10.2025 passed by NCLT, New Delhi, Court-3 by which I.A.(IBC)

(PLAN)-51- 2024 filed by RP for approving of the plan has been allowed.

2. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant challenging the order submits that

there were two assets of the CD which were wrongly included in the

Information Memorandum, which has been detailed in Para 10.2 (a & b),

which is as follows:

"(a) Industrial Land and Building at Plot No. 108, HPSIDC, Baddi Himachal Pradesh-173005 admeasuring 9543 square meters.

(b) Industrial Plot at Village Thantewal, H.8.No. 125, Tehsil Nalagarh,"

3. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant submits that the assets were

included in the Resolution Plan, however, SRA filed an affidavit that he shall

not claim any rights on the said properties and on that basis Adjudicating

Authority passed the impugned order approving the Resolution Plan and

issued directions with regard to said assets in Para 11.2 of the impugned

order. Counsel for the Appellant submits that in the present case Information

Memorandum ought to have been modified by excluding the said assets from

the Resolution Process.

4. Counsel for the RP refuting the submission of the Appellant

submits that the said two assets were recorded in the revenue record in the

name of the CD, hence, they were rightly included in the Information

Memorandum. It is further submitted that the said assets were not in

possession of the CD which fact was also noticed in the Information

Memorandum. There have been various applications filed with regard to the

said assets before the Adjudicating Authority and other forums. It is submitted

that the said assets were also included in the Resolution Plan, however, SRA

on its own violation has come up and filed an affidavit that SRA shall not claim

any rights on those assets in the Plan. The CoC in its commercial wisdom has

approved the Plan where Financial Creditor was permitted to pursue the

matter with regard to the above assets.

5. Ld. Counsel for the SRA submits that there was no error in the

Information Memorandum with regard to two assets and they were also

included in the Resolution Plan but assets are not in possession of the CD and

2 of 4 there being litigation with respect to the said assets, SRA has filed an affidavit

and CoC in its commercial wisdom approved the Plan.

6. We are considered the submissions of the parties, perused the

record.

7. The order which has been passed by Adjudicating Authority in

Para 11.2 with respect to two assets need to be noticed, which is as follows:

"We reiterate and direct that the following two properties,

(i) the Industrial Land and Building situated at Plot No. 108, HPSIDC, Baddi, Himachal Pradesh 173005, admeasuring 9543 square meters; and (ii) the Industrial Plot located at Village Thantewal, H.B. No. 125, Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh, admeasuring 12 Kanal 17 Marla, will not be claimed by the Successful Resolution Applicant under the Resolution Plan, and the Resolution Professional/Monitoring Committee/Financial Creditors will pursue the claims in respect of the said properties. Any amount or benefit received will be avail by the Financial Creditors in accordance with the waterfall mechanism prescribed under Section 53 of the IBC, 2016."

8. When we look into the directions of the Adjudicating Authority

regarding two assets, it is clear that the said assets had not claimed by SRA

under the Resolution Plan and the Resolution Professional/Monitoring

Committee/Financial Creditor were to pursue in respect to the said property

and any amount or benefit received will be availed by the Financial Creditors

in accordance with the waterfall mechanism prescribed under Section 53 of

3 of 4 the IBC, 2016. The above directions were issuance by the Adjudicating

Authority while approving the Resolution Plan. Resolution Plan having been

approved by the CoC and SRA having offered not to claim any right which has

been accepted by Adjudicating Authority, we are of the view that at the

instance of the Suspended Directors the said decision cannot be interfered

with. The submission of the Appellant that the assets were wrongly included

in the Information Memorandum does not appeal to us. When the CD was

shown in the revenue record as the owner of the assets, in Information

Memorandum had to mention the said assets. The facts that there is litigation

regarding assets is also on the record which is the reason for SRA for not

claiming any right in the said assets, however, the assets have been dealt with

as part of the Resolution Plan where now the Resolution

Professional/Monitoring Committee/Financial Creditor to pursue the claim in

respect to the said assets. Resolution Plan having been approved by the CoC

in its commercial wisdom, we do not find any error in the order, warranting

any interference.

9. The Appeal is dismissed.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) Abhishek/md

4 of 4