Ratnakar Sharma vs Harvinder Singh & Ors

Ratnakar Sharma ....Appellant

Vs.

1. Harvinder Singh ....Respondent No.1 2. Committee of Creditors of Siti Broadband Services Pvt Ltd. ...Respondent No.2

3. Siti Networks Ltd. ...Respondent No.3 4. Committee of Creditors of Siti Networks Ltd. ...Respondent No.4 5. Cyfuture India Pvt Ltd. ...Respondent No.5 6. Subalaxmi Investment Advisory Pvt Ltd. ...Respondent No.6

(Arising out of Order dated 21.01.2026 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi) in IA No. 511 of 2025 in CP(IB) No. 685 of 2022)

For Appellant: Mr. Vishesh Kalra, Ms. Simran S., Advocates For Respondent: Mr. Abhishek Anand, Mr. Karan Kohli, Ms. Palak Kalra, Advocates for R-1 Mr. Sourav Agarwal, Mr. Debarshi Dutta, Mr. Shivam Tiwari, Ms. Nikita Rathi, Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocates Mr. Saurabh Kalia, Mr. S. Shishir, Advocates for R-5 2

JUDGEMENT

Per Justice N. Seshasayee, Member (Judicial)

This appeal is preferred by the suspended director of the corporate debtor who

challenges an Order passed in I.A. No.511 of 2025 through which it raised

certain objections to the approval of the plan which is pending consideration of

the Adjudicating Authority in I.A. No.1 of 2025 which the RP has filed. The Order

in that I.A. No.1 of 2025 is stated to have been reserved by the Adjudicating

Authority.

2. Before the Adjudicating Authority, the appellant herein has raised three

facts of objections:

a) that plan does not take into consideration the CIRP cost;

b) that the CD is a subsidiary of a certain holding company and the holding

company itself is now under CIRP. That the RP of the holding company

has raised certain bill to the RP of the subsidiary company and this is not

considered; and

c) that the trademark of the holding company has been given free of cost to

the SRA of the subsidiary company.

3. The learned Adjudicating Authority vide the Order now impugned before

us has dismissed the application principally on the ground that the appellant

does not have any locus standi to raise the contention which he has raised. We

do not find any infirmity in the approach of the learned Adjudicating Authority.

If CIRP cost which comprises chiefly the remuneration to the RP and such are

the cost which the RP may have incurred for keeping the CD as a going concern, 3

they will definitely fall under the scrutiny of the Adjudicating Authority. At any

rate, the remuneration component is something the RP should worry about and

not the suspended director. Secondly, so far as the bill which the RP of the

holding company has raised against the RP of the subsidiary company which is

the corporate debtor in the present case is concerned, again stricto sensu if that

bill is to be accommodated that only lead to depletion of the asset value of the

corporate debtor. This is an aspect which has to be considered in the CIRP

proceedings of the holding company and not of the subsidiary company. Turing

to the last i.e. the trademark of the holding company given to the SRA of the CD

is concerned, this again is an issue which will be relevant to the CIRP

proceedings of the holding company and not of the subsidiary.

4. It is in these circumstances, as indicated, we find it difficult to persuade

ourselves that the appellant has an arguable case in the matter.

5. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No cost.

I.A. No.2354 of 2026 is also closed.

[Justice N. Seshasayee] Member (Judicial)

[Mr. Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) rs/md