Rakesh Saxena vs Neeraj Bhatia & Ors

IN THE MATTER OF: Rakesh Saxena ...Appellant

Versus

Neeraj Bhatia & Ors. Resolution Professional ...Respondents Present: For Appellant : Adv. Mrinal Harsh Vardhan, Mr Akash Bhatt, Mr Rituparna Patra, Adv. Akankrita Sinha, Advocates. For Respondents : Mr Ashutosh Kumar, R1 (RP), Advocate. Mr Asav Rajan, Mr Akash Saxena, Mr Devang Shrotriya, Mr Kashish Chadha, Mr Aditya Shah, Mr Raghav Bansal for R2, Financial Creditor, Advocates.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

13.08.2025 This appeal is against the order dated 18.09.2024 by which

I.A. No. 2854/2024 filed by the RP under Section 99 of the code for taking on

record, the report prepared by him for passing of the order under Section 100

has been allowed.

Counsel for the appellant has submitted that with the approval of the

Resolution Plan the liability as a guarantor has been extinguished. On the

other hand, counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No.2 has submitted

that though there is a clause in the Resolution Plan that the Secured

Financial Creditor shall not have a right to pursue the personal guarantee

separately for settlement amount offered by the Resolution Applicant in the

Resolution Plan but the effective date would be the date of the order passed

by the Adjudicating Authority. He has submitted that the said stage has not come yet despite the fact that the COC has approved the plan on 03.07.2024.

He has submitted that the Tribunal, seized of IA No. 43/2024, filed by the RP

for approval of the plan, has adjourned the hearing time and again pointing

out the deficiencies in the plan for its removal. In this regard, he has referred

to the order dated 21.03.2025 and 21.04.2025 and also submitted that the

next date of hearing in IA No. 43/2024 is 17.09.2025.

Counsel for the Respondent has submitted that the appellant is the

personal guarantor who has given the payment plan of Rs. 2.5 lakhs as

against Rs 2.58 crores. Counsel for the Appellant, in rebuttal has submitted

that the right of the Appellant would be adversely effected if the proceedings,

initiated in terms of the application filed under Section 95, is not kept in

abeyance till the decision is taken by the Adjudicating Authority on the plan

submitted in the Resolution Process of the CD, namely, Durha Vitrak Pvt.

Ltd.

On the other hand, Counsel for the Respondent has submitted that

the amount of Rs. 2.5 crore is held up which is sought to be squared off by

the appellant through the payment plan of Rs. 2.5 lakhs only.

We have heard counsel for the parties and are of the considered opinion

that there is hardly any reason to interfere in the impugned order and since

there is a provision in the Resolution Plan about extinguishment of the

liabilities of the Personal Guarantor, on its approval by the Adjudicating

Authorities and the said stage has not yet come, therefore, we leave it open

for the appellant to file an appropriate application in accordance with law, in

the proceedings which have been initiated with the admission of the application filed under Section 95. With these observations, the present

appeal is disposed of. No cost. An I.A. if any, pending are hereby closed.

[Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain] Member (Judicial)

[Justice Mohammad Faiz Alam Khan] Member (Judicial)

[Mr. Naresh Salecha] Member (Technical)

MT/RR