Rajiv Sood vs Pankaj Narang Resolution Professional ...
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 686 of 2025
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Adjudicating Authority was right to reject an application under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code for replacement of the Resolution Professional where it was brought by five homebuyers out of 900, because the Authorised Representative of the homebuyers had already been appointed to represent their interests and act on their behalf in the CoC. Where the Authorised Representative has already communicated the collective wish of the homebuyers, that communication is taken up through the Authorised Representative, who remains free to make a further application to the Adjudicating Authority to give effect to it, and the Adjudicating Authority is to decide any such application in accordance with law at an early date.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE MATTER OF: Rajiv Sood ...Appellant
Versus
Pankaj Narang (RP in CIRP of JBK Developers Pvt. Ltd.) ...Respondent
Present: For Appellant: Mr. Sumit Shukla, Mr. Sanjeev Panda, Advocates. For Respondent: Mr. Harish Taneja, Ms. Parul, Advocates for R-1 (RP).
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
06.05.2025: This appeal has been filed against order dated 03.04.2025
passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), New
Delhi, Court-IV in IA No.1499/ND/2025. IA was filed by 5 homebuyers
seeking to place resolution for replacement of Resolution Professional in the
meeting of the CoC. The Adjudicating Authority took the view that the
Authorized Representative having already appointed, the application filed by
5 homebuyers out of 900 homebuyers is not maintainable, hence, rejected the
application.
2. Learned counsel for the Appellant referring to email dated 17.03.2025,
which was sent by the Authorised Representative of JBK Developers Pvt. Ltd.
to the Resolution Professional informing that 42.08% homebuyers have
requested to place resolution for change of Resolution Professional in the
meeting of the CoC.
Cont'd.../ 2
3. We are of the view that the Authorised Representative has already sent
an email. It is open for the Authorised Representative to file an application
before the Adjudicating Authority for appropriate directions. In so far as
application filed by five homebuyers, we do not find any error in the order of
the Adjudicating Authority rejecting the application. However, there shall be
liberty to the Authorised Representative to file an application in continuation
to the email dated 17.03.2025 before the Adjudicating Authority. If any such
application is filed, the Adjudicating Authority shall endeavour to decide the
same in accordance with law at an early date. With these observation, we
dispose of this appeal.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)
[Arun Baroka] Member (Technical) Archana/nn
Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.686 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