Relcon Infraprojects Ltd vs Pravin R. Navandar
- CitationComp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 668 of 2026
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where an operational creditor is entitled to a pay-out under Section 30(2)(b) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and the pay-out made is not contrary to that entitlement, the creditor cannot complain of the resolution professional's non-admission of a claim component where the resolution professional has communicated that non-admission and the creditor has taken no steps to challenge it. After the approval of a resolution plan application, an operational creditor cannot raise objections to the valuation of the corporate debtor, since valuation is to be conducted under the CIRP Regulations, 2016, and a valuation so conducted and considered during the CIRP has become final.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 668 of 2026 IN THE MATTER OF: Relcon Infraprojects Ltd. ...Appellant(s)
Versus Pravin R. Navandar ...Respondent(s)
Present: For Appellant : Mr. Kushal Bansal, Advocate
For Respondents : Mr. Vaijayant Paliwal, Ms. Shruti Poddar, Mr. Aditya Marwah, Ms. Snigdha Saraf, Ms. Aditi Roy, Mr. Saurav Panda, Advocates
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
28.04.2026 Heard Ld. Counsel for the Appellant.
2. This Appeal has been filed against the order dated 29/01/2026, by
which Adjudicating Authority has allowed the Application I.A. (IBC) (Plan)
No. 110 of 2025.
3. Appellant is an operational creditor, being aggrieved by this order has
come up with this Appeal. Ld. Counsel for Appellant raised two submissions
challenging the order.
4. Firstly, he submitted that the Resolution Professional has not
admitted the interest component and only admitted the principle amount of
Rs. 14,86,777/-. It is submitted that Appellant had no opportunity to file an
Application.
5. Secondly, Ld. Counsel for Appellant submitted that the valuation of
the Corporate Debtor has been undervalue, whereas the value of the CD is
much more, more than thrice.
6. Ld. Counsel for the RP submitted that Appellant was communicated
by the RP on 01/12/2025 that only principle amount has been admitted
and the interest amount is not admitted.
7. It is submitted that Appellant did not take any steps to challenge the
said decision and it is further submitted that pay out to the Appellant is in
accordance with Section 30(2)(b) of the IBC.
8. We have heard Counsel for the Parties and perused the record.
9. Appellant, as operational creditor is entitled for pay out under Section
30(2)(b). It is not the case that pay out made to the Appellant is contrary to
the entitlement under Section 30(2)(b).
10. In so far as the submission of the Appellant that he did not get an
opportunity to challenge non admission of the interest. Suffice is to say that
RP has communicated that his interest component is not admitted and no
steps is shown to have been taken.
11. Coming to the valuation, submission of the Appellant that CD is
undervalue, question of valuation is to be conducted as per the CIRP
Regulation, 2016, and that valuation is as per the procedure envisaged in
2016 Regulations.
12. The Operational Creditor, after Plan Approval Application, cannot be
allowed to raise issues regarding valuations, which has already been
considered and become final during the CIRP Process.
13. We thus are of the view that none of the grounds made by the
Appellant makes out any ground to interfere in the impugned order.
2 of 3
14. The Appeal is dismissed.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Indevar Pandey] Member (Technical) Prerana/md
3 of 3
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free