Ramchandra Krishnakant Ralkar ... vs Shraddha Landmark Private Limited

IN THE MATTER OF: Ramchandra Krishnakant Ralkar, (Suspended Director of Shraddha Landmark Pvt. Ltd.) ...Appellant Versus Shraddha Landmark Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. ...Respondents

Present: For Appellant : Mr. Krishnendu Dutta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Anuj Tiwari, Mr. Prakhar Tandon, Ms. Alina Merin Mathew, Ms. Shalini Basu, Ms. Kaanchi Ahuja and Mr. Vaibhav Vats, Advocates.

For Respondents : Mr. Manish Paliwal, Advocate for RP.

Mr. Devul Dighe, Advocate for R-2.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

24.09.2025 : Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1316/2025 with I.A. No.

5826/2025

1. The appeal has been filed by the suspended director of the corporate

debtor challenging the order dated 22.08.2025 passed by the adjudicating

authority (National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai Bench IV),

admitting Section 9 application filed by the respondent - Shraddha Landmark

Pvt. Ltd.

2. Appellant is a real estate company which has started the residential

and commercial project "Shraddha Landmark". The corporate debtor placed

orders on the operational creditor with regard to supply of AAC Blocks, Joint

Mortar, Cement, TMT Bars, Binding Wires, and other materials, claiming

outstanding debt on the corporate debt, section 9 application was filed claiming a debt of Rs.7,07,06,829/-. The corporate debtor filed a reply where

it was stated that it was agreed between the parties that outstanding amount

shall be paid by sale of in ongoing project to take care of the dues of the

operational creditor. The adjudicating authority by the impugned order

admitted Section 9 application against which this appeal was filed. When the

appeal was heard this Tribunal passed the following interim order on

03.09.2025:

"Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that as per the MOU dated 03.12.2021 between the parties, in event the Corporate Debtor was unable to pay the outstanding amount to the Operational Creditor, he was to settle the outstanding payment by offering flats being available in the projects as per the market rate. Learned counsel for the Appellant further submits that the Appellant is ready to offer flats in existing projects to match the entire outstanding in the Part IV, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of both the parties.

Let the aforesaid offer with valuation be communicated to the Operational Creditor by the Appellant. Issue notice. Let reply be filed within three weeks. Two weeks' time is allowed to file rejoinder. List this appeal on 07.10.2025.

In the meantime, in pursuance of the impugned order the Interim Resolution Professional may receive and collate the claims but shall not constitute the CoC. The IRP shall ensure that that Corporate Debtor runs as a going concern with assistance of the Promoters of the Corporate Debtor, its staff and employees."

3. By the interim order, we directed that IRP may receive and collate the

claims but shall not constitute the CoC.

4. I.A. No. 5826/2025 has been filed bringing on record the settlement

between the parties dated 17.09.2025 under which the corporate debtor

agreed to pay the amount in cash as well as the flats.

I.A. No. 5826 of 2025 In Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1316 of 2025 2 of 3

5. Learned counsel for the operational creditor submits that the

operational creditor has already settled with the appellant and the CIRP

process against the corporate debtor may not be continued any further.

6. It is submitted by the appellant that in pursuance of the publication

issued by the IRP, only claim received in the CIRP is that of operational

creditor, no other claim was filed. It is submitted by the IRP that only one

claim of the operational creditor has been received.

7. In the facts of the present case where only claimant is the operational

creditor who has already settled with the corporate debtor and has submitted

that he does not want to pursue proceeding under Section 9 against the

corporate debtor. We are of the view that no useful purpose shall be served

in directing for filing an application under Section 12A for withdrawal of the

CIRP, there being only sole claimant who has already settled.

8. We thus are of the view that in the facts of the present case, I.A. No.

5826/2025 is allowed. The settlement is taken on record. The CIRP against

appellant stand closed. It is submitted that fee and expenses of the IRP has

already been paid.

Appeal is disposed of accordingly.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) himanshu/nn

I.A. No. 5826 of 2025 In Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1316 of 2025 3 of 3