Rajiv Goel vs Sankalp Siddhi Developers Pvt. Ltd
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Ins) No.846 of 2025
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal closed a CIRP initiated under Section 7 of the IBC, relying on the settlement between the parties and the withdrawal of the only claims received, and on its reading of two earlier decisions holding that inherent power may be exercised to close CIRP proceedings in appropriate cases. A CIRP may be closed, and the impugned order of admission set aside, where the parties have settled their disputes by consent terms and the only claimants have withdrawn their claims, so that no impediment remains to closure.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No.846 of 2025 In the matter of: Rajiv Goel ...Appellant
Vs. Sankalp Siddhi Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. ...Respondents Present: Appellant: Mr. Abhijeet Sinha, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Udagaditya Banerjee, Mr. Abhinav Agarwal, Mr. Rayan Kohli, Ms. Misbah Khan, Mr. Piyush Bhardwaj, Mr. Shivam Sen Gupta, Ms. Shubhangi Dandey, Mr. S. Mondal, Advocates Respondent: Mr. Krishnendu Datta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Himanshu Satija, Mr. Harsh Saxena, Ms. Ridhi Ranjan, Mr. Yash Tandon, Advocates for R-1 Mr. Harshit Khandiya with Mr. Dilip Jagad, IRP
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode) 10.7.2025 - This Appeal is against an impugned Order dated 28th May,
2025 whereby the learned Adjudicating Authority, Mumbai had initiated the
Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against the Corporate Debtor namely
Sahyog Homes Ltd. on an application filed under Section 7 of the Insolvency and
Bankruptcy Code, 2016 by Respondent No.1.
2. The Appellant is a suspended Director of Respondent No.2 - Corporate
Debtor. During the pendency of the Appeal, the parties have entered into
amicable settlement and have filed Consent Terms and in view thereof an
additional Affidavit has been filed by the Appellant herein. In the additional
Affidavit, it is stated parties have settled the disputes and differences. The
Consent Terms dated 4.6.2025 are also annexed along with the additional 2
Affidavit at page No.5. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of all the
parties submit parties shall be bound by the terms and conditions of the Consent
Terms dated 4.6.2025.
3. Now it is the submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant
in pursuance of the Consent Terms and since there exist no claimant, the CIRP
be closed.
4. We have also called for a Status Report from the Interim Resolution
Professional vide an Order dated 7.7.2025. As per the Status Report, it is alleged
a public announcement in Form - A was made by the IRP on 29.5.2025 and uptil
4.6.2025, only one claim was received from two home buyers but later such claim
was also withdrawn by the claimant. A letter to this effect is Annexure A-3,
received from such Claimants, namely Mr. Mahtab Suresh Khan and Mrs.
Gauharjahan Mahtab Khan viz Owners of Flat No. S-3, 1302 in Verona,
Oshiwara, Mumbai. It is stated in their letter they do not wish to pursue their
claim any further and have no objection in case the CIRP of the Corporate Debtor
is withdrawn or set aside by this Tribunal.
5. We have also gone through the Judgements viz "Gaurav Bhatia
(Suspended Director of Bird Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd.) Versus Smriti Bhatia
& Ors.", Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No.881 of 2025 as well as "Sachin Malde Vs.
Hemant Nanji Chheda & Anr.", Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 123 of
2024 wherein in similar circumstances, the CIRP was directed to be closed. In
the said Judgement, the reference was also made to "GLAS Trust Company LLC
Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No.846 of 2025 3
Vs. BYJU Raveendran & Ors." Civil Appeal No. 9986 of 2024 which held in
appropriate cases inherent power can be exercised to close the proceedings. In
both these cited Judgements, the CIRP was directed to be closed and the
Impugned Order was set aside.
6. In view of the law stated above and also the settlement arrived at between
the parties and also that the only claimants have also withdrawn their claim,
hence there is no impediment in closing of the CIRP. In the circumstances, the
proceedings of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against the Corporate
Debtor needs to be closed. The impugned Order is thus set aside.
7. The learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant submits they shall pay the
cost of CIRP, including that of IRP viz his fees and expenses.
8. The appeal is, thus, allowed with a liberty to Respondent No.1 to revive the
CIRP by filing an appropriate application in case the financial discipline as set
out in the Consent Terms is not adhered to.
9. The Appeal is thus disposed of in terms of the above. Pending applications
are also disposed of.
[Justice Yogesh Khanna] Member (Judicial)
[Indevar Pandey] Member (Technical) rs/md
Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No.846 of 2025
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