Rajiv Bhatnagar Resolution ... vs Respondents

Rajiv Bhatnagar, RP, Saya Automobiles Ltd. ...Appellant Versus ---- ...Respondents

Present: For Appellant : Mr. Akshay Goel, Ms. Pratiksha Bansal, Mr. Yug Pratik, Advocates with Mr. Rajiv Bhatnagar, RP in person. For Respondents :

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

11.08.2025: An Additional Affidavit has been filed by the Appellant in

pursuance of liberty granted on 04.08.2025. This appeal has been filed

against order dated 28.05.2025 by which IA No.2543 of 2025 filed by the

Appellant - Resolution Professional for exclusion of 85 days i.e. from

29.12.2024 to 24.03.2025 has been rejected.

2. In the CIRP, the Adjudicating Authority has allowed extension, last

extension was allowed on 17.04.2025 beyond 270 days w.e.f. 28.03.2025 for

60 days which came to an end on 28.05.2025. The Applicant has filed an

application IA No.2543 of 2025 praying for exclusion of 85 days from

29.12.2024 to 24.03.2024, which has been rejected by the Adjudicating

Authority by the impugned order.

Cont'd.../

3. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that in the CIRP, Resolution

Plan has already been received. Learned counsel for the Appellant referred to

18th meeting of the CoC held on 14.07.2025 where the CoC noticed the Swiss

Challenge Mechanism, which was conducted and which has also noted the

two Resolution Plans. The application which was filed by the Appellant for

exclusion was rejected and while rejecting the application, the Adjudicating

Authority made following observations:

"As far as contention of the Applicant that for effective resolution of the Corporate Debtor, Resolution Plans, which have been received is to be considered by the CoC. For that purpose, a specific application for extension could have been filed. It is not appropriate for the Applicant to seek exclusion at this stage.

Exclusion on the ground of pendency can be considered only where due to the pendency of the application, further proceeding in the CIRP could not have been taken by the CoC or the RP. Therefore, we are not inclined to allow this application and the same is dismissed.

New IA/2543/2025 is dismissed

However, RP is having liberty to take suitable legal recourse for effective resolution of the Corporate Debtor."

4. In the Additional Affidavit which has been filed by the Appellant, it is

submitted that period extended came to an end on 28.05.2025 and the

Adjudicating Authority itself has observed that the Resolution Professional to

take suitable legal recourse for resolution of the Corporate Debtor. By the

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 989 of 2025 2 of 3 Additional Affidavit the Applicant has prayed for amending the prayers, by

one of the alternative prayer (b), the Applicant has prayed for extension of

time from 28.05.2025, which is last date of CIRP. It is submitted that if

extension is granted from 28.05.2025 for 85 days, still there will be sometime

for the Resolution Professional for getting complete the process of voting.

5. The Resolution Plan has been received that too after adopting the Swiss

Challenge Mechanism indicate that the resolution of the Corporate Debtor is

in sight. We, thus, are of the view that in so far as impugned order refusing

exclusion is concerned, no ground has been made out to interfere with the

order dated 28.05.2025 but in view of the alternate relief as prayed in the

Additional Affidavit, we are of the view that ends of justice be served in

extending the CIRP period from 28.05.2025 till the end of August i.e.

31.08.2025. The Resolution Professional to complete the entire process before

31.08.2025 and submit the approved plan, if any, before the Adjudicating

Authority. Appeal is disposed of accordingly.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) Archana/nn

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 989 of 2025 3 of 3