Resolution Professional Of S.K.M. Real ... vs West End Investment And Finance

West End Investment and Finance Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellant Versus Neeraja Kartik & Anr. ...Respondents

Present: For Appellant : Mr. Navin Pahwa, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Mr. Rishi Agrawal, Ms. Shivani Shukla, Mr. Kaustubh Singh, Ms. Shubhi Agarwal, Advocates. For Respondents : Mr. Krishnendu Datta, Sr. Advocate and Mr. N. Venkataraman, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Karan Malhotra, Ms. Nandita Bajpai, Mr. Anant Shankar Tripathi, Advocates for R-1. Mr. Mohit Chadha, Ms. Payal Golimar, Advocates for R-2.

With

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1103 of 2025

IN THE MATTER OF:

Resolution Professional of S.K.M Real Infra Ltd. ...Appellant Versus West End Investment and Finance Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. ...Respondents

Present: For Appellant : Mr. N. Venkataraman, Sr. Advocate and Mr. Krishnendu Datta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Karan Malhotra, Ms. Nandita Bajpai, Mr. Anant Shankar Tripathi, Advocates. For Respondents : Mr. Navin Pahwa, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Mr. Rishi Agrawal, Ms. Shivani Shukla,

Cont'd.../ Mr. Kaustubh Singh, Ms. Shubhi Agarwal, Advocates for R-1. Mr. Mohit Chadha, Ms. Payal Golimar, Advocates for R-2.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

28.07.2025: Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.1101 of 2025 has been filed

by the Resolution Applicant challenging the order dated 18.07.2025 passed

in IA No.5883/2024 filed by applicant by which order the Adjudicating

Authority has rejected the IA No.5883/2024 by which applicant has prayed

for direction to consider its revised third bid and his plan to be considered

according to the revised third bid submitted by the Appellant in the challenge

process.

2. Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.1103 of 2025 has been filed by the

Resolution Professional challenging order dated 18.07.2025 to the limited

extend by which the Adjudicating Authority has directed to maintain the

status quo till 29.07.2025.

3. We have heard Sh. Navin Pahwa, learned senior counsel appearing for

the Appellant in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.1101 of 2025, Shri

Krishnendu Datta, learned senior counsel appearing for the Appellant in

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.1103 of 2025 and Shri N. Venkataraman,

learned senior counsel appearing for the CoC.

4. Shri Pahwa, learned counsel for the Appellant submits that Appellant's

bid in the first round of the challenge was the highest bid, hence, he has to

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1101 and 1103 of 2025 2 of 5 be given opportunity to submit revised bid for the third round. He submits

that his first bid was 91.37, which was the highest, hence, he was not obliged

to participate in the second round and in the third round he gave bid of 92.97.

He submits that the bid submitted in the third round was delayed by three

minutes, hence, the Resolution Professional did not accept the bid under the

instructions of the CoC. Application was filed by Appellant being IA No.

5883/2024 seeking direction to the Resolution Professional and CoC to accept

the bid which was given by the Appellant in the third round, which application

has been rejected.

4. The Adjudicating Authority in the impugned order has taken a view that

when all bids were to be considered in the timeline as provided in the

challenge process, the third bid which was submitted by the Appellant under

those timelines has rightly not been accepted by the Resolution Professional

and CoC. The COC having taken a consensus decision to follow the timelines,

no error be set in passing the said order.

5. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties

and perused the record.

6. There is no dispute to the fact that the bid given in the third round by

the Appellant was delayed by three minutes. The challenge process was

process which was controlled by timelines with regard to first round, second

round and third round. When the bid in third round given by the Appellant

was beyond timelines, no right can be claim by the Appellant that his bid in

the third round has to be considered. However, there is no dispute between

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1101 and 1103 of 2025 3 of 5 the parties that in the first round the Appellant was treated as H-1 Bidder

and he also submitted the Resolution Plan accordingly. The CoC is yet to vote

on the different Resolution Plans including the plan submitted by the

Appellant in the first round. Even if, the bid given by the Appellant in third

round is not accepted, there is no inhibition in the CoC to consider the plan

of the Appellant as per the bid given in the first round as well as the plans

given by other participants who participated in the challenge process. In the

RFRP, it is the CoC who is endowed by all powers to consider any plan or not.

The fact that any Applicant is H-1 bidder does not oblige the CoC to approve

the Resolution Plan. The CoC is fully entitled to negotiate with one or all

Resolution Applicants.

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

Adjudicating Authority in not accepting the prayers made in application I.A.

No.5883/2024. We, however, observe that the Resolution Plan of the

Appellant as per his first bid may be considered by the CoC after necessary

compliance as indicated by the Resolution Professional. In view of the

aforesaid, we see no reason to interfere in the impugned order. We dispose of

the Appeal observing that the resolution plan in accordance with the first bid

submitted by the Appellant after necessary compliance be considered by the

CoC along with other compliant plans available for consideration. Company

Appeal (AT) (Ins) No.1101 of 2025 is disposed of accordingly.

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1101 and 1103 of 2025 4 of 5

8. In view of order passed in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No.1101 of 2025,

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No.1103 of 2025 has become infructuous.

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No.1103 of 2025 is dismissed as infructuous.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) Archana/nn

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1101 and 1103 of 2025 5 of 5