Ranjan Chakraborti vs Srei Multiple Asset Investment Trust ...

IN THE MATTER OF: Ranjan Chakraborti, ...Appellants RP of Ortel Communications Ltd. Versus SREI Multiple Asset Investment Trust ...Respondents Vision India Fund & Anr.

Present: For Appellant : Mr. Mayank Wadhwa, Advocate. For Respondents :

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

14.07.2025: This appeal has been filed against the order dated

03.4.2025 by which IA No. 813/2025 filed by the appellant the Resolution

Professional of the CD seeking a direction for refund the PBG by Respondent

no.1 has been rejected.

2. The Respondent No.1 has submitted PBG which was extended from

time to time till 11.11.2022. The respondent no.1 failed to renew the PBG

after 11.11.2022 and IA filed by Resolution Professional seeking direction to

renew, was after expiration of the PBG and no orders were passed in the

application seeking a direction to renew the PBG. Subsequently, the CoC took

a decision to issue fresh Form-G and order dated 06.09.2024 was passed by

Adjudicating Authority for issuance of fresh Form-G. The former Resolution

Applicant i.e; respondent no.1 has denied to proceed further with the

resolution plan submitted by it. Direction was issued to issue fresh Form-G on 06.09.2024, it was in the year 2025 that IA No. 813/2025 has been filed

by the appellant seeking a direction to R1 to pay the amount of PBG i.e.

Rs.4,00,05,000/- (Rupees Four Crore Five Thousand Only) which have been

rejected. The Adjudicating Authority has held that vide order dated

04.09.2024 direction has been issued to issuance of fresh Form-G and the

respondent no.1 has declined to proceed with the plan further citing that the

operation of the CD has been shut down. Ld. Counsel for the appellant

submits that respondent no.1 has no jurisdiction to withdraw from the plan

and he was liable to pay the amount of PBG to the Resolution Professional/

CoC.

3. We have considered the submissions of the appellant and perused the

record.

4. From the facts of the record it does appear that PBG which was given

by R1 was renewed from time to time till 11.11.2022. The PBG was not

renewed thereafter and the application filed by the earlier RP seeking a

direction to renew the PBG did not result in any favourable order and the

PBG lapsed after 11.11.2022. The Adjudicating Authority by order dated

06.09.2024 has directed for issuance of fresh Form-G and the fresh process

has to be initiated as per the order. It is not shown that order dated

06.09.2024 has been challenged and is not operative. We are of the view that

in the year 2025 when the PBG has already lapsed and the application

seeking direction for renewal did not result in any favourable order, at this

juncture Adjudicating Authority has rightly rejected the application filed by

2 of 3 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 780 of 2025 the appellant being IA No. 813/2025 seeking a direction for disbursal of the

amount of Rs.4,00,05,000/- (Rupees Four Crore Five Thousand Only).

There is no merit in the appeal. Appeal is dismissed.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) harleen/NN

3 of 3 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 780 of 2025