Ramesh Patankar vs Idbi Trusteeship Service Ltd & Ors

Ramesh Patankar ...Appellant(s)

Versus

IDBI Trusteeship Services Limited & Anr. ...Respondent(s) Present: For Appellant : Mr. Abhijeet Sinha, Sr. Adv. with Aayush Agarwala, Ashok Paranjpe, Mukti Heliwal, Adv. For Respondents : Mr. Kunal Kanungo, Atishay Jain, Adv. for R2 Mr. K. Datta, Sr. Adv with Prachi Dave, Saloni Sulakhe, Akshat Malpani, Niharika Sharm, Adv.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode) 30.01.2026: Heard Ld. Counsel for the Appellant and Ld. Counsel for

the Respondent.

2. This appeal has been filed against the order dated 08.01.2026 passed

by the NCLT, Mumbai Bench, Court No. III in I.A No. 5994 of 2025.

3. Brief facts necessary to be noticed for deciding the appeal are that the

CIRP against the CD commenced by an order dated 05.08.2021. The

Adjudicating Authority allowed the withdrawal of CIRP on 09.02.2022. There

being a default committed by the CD an application I.A No. 3196 of 2022 was

filed for revival of the CP which was rejected on 21.12.2022. Aggrieved by this

order, the appeal was filed in this Court by the Financial Creditor i.e. CA (AT)

(Ins) No. 117 of 2023 which appeal came to be allowed by this Court on

15.05.2023 subsequent to the order of this Court allowing the appeal as well

as allowing I.A No. 3196 of 2022, the FC filed an I.A No. 5994 of 2025 which

has been allowed by the impugned order and IRP has been appointed. Aggrieved by this order, the suspended director of the CD has come up in this

appeal.

4. Ld. Sr. Counsel for the Appellant challenging the order submits that

order of this court was passed on 15.05.2023 and for a long period of more

than two years the FC did not approach the Court for revival and engaged

with the CD for group settlement and in the year 2025 I.A No. 5994 of 2025

was filed. It is submitted that the Appellant was entitled to present the steps

taken during the aforesaid period before the Adjudicating Authority before the

impugned order could have been passed. It is submitted that although the

application was served and the counsel was present but no opportunity was

given to file the reply to the application.

5. Ld. Sr. Counsel for the Respondent submits that in view of the order

passed by this Court on 15.05.2023 allowing the appeal as well as I.A No.

3196 of 2022 the CIRP stood revived and no further order was to be passed

by the Adjudicating Authority. It is submitted that with respect to delay which

was caused for filing the application, the Adjudicating Authority has already

imposed a cost of Rs. 50,000/- on the FC. It is submitted that the Appellant

cannot resist the revival of the CIRP in the present appeal and the fact of the

matter is that the settlement did not fructified and in event the Appellant still

take steps for settlement which will be open to file fresh application under

Section 12A of the Code before the Adjudicating Authority.

6. We have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. As noted above, the CIRP was permitted to be withdrawn by the

Adjudicating Authority on settlement and an application for revival i.e. I.A No. 3196 of 2022 was filed by the FC which was rejected on 21.12.2022. Counsel

for the FC has produced the copy of the application i.e. I.A No. 3196 of 2022

which was part of the earlier appeal where following prayers were made:-

"a. The withdrawal order dated 09.02.2022 be recalled by the Hon'ble Tribunal under Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules, 2016. b. The Company Petition No. 4412 of 2022 be revived/restored with the moratorium order dated 05.08.2021 in effect. c. For grant of such order and further reliefs as this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit in the nature and circumstances of the matter"

8. When we look into the order dated 15.05.2023 of this Court it is clear

that the prayers in I.A No. 3196 of 2022 were allowed and CP was revived

before the Adjudicating Authority to proceed in accordance with law when the

CIRP was revived, the CIRP proceeding was in rem and revived and no further

order is required to the Adjudicating Authority for revival of the CIRP, the fact

remains that the FC approached the Court with delay of more than two years

for which a cost has been imposed by the Adjudicating Authority on the FC.

The CD was also served with the application and Counsel was also present.

9. We thus are of the view that no error has been committed by the

Adjudicating Authority in passing the impugned order, appointing the IRP

since the new IRP was to be appointed in the application as prayed by the FC.

10. In so far as the Appellant submission that during the period of steps

were taken for group settlement it is always open for the Appellant to request

the FC to file an application under Section 12A if any settlement take place

between the parties.

11. We thus do not find any error in the impugned order, the appeal is

dismissed. No costs.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) Sheetal/Manu