Right Advisors Private Limited vs Technicolour Dream Pants Private ...

IN THE MATTER OF: Right Advisors Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellants Versus Rakesh Jain, ...Respondents RP of Technicolour Dream Pants Pvt. Ltd.

Present: For Appellant : Mr. Adarsh Rai and Ms. Nandita Chaurasia, Advocates. For Respondents : Mr. Manoj Kumar Garg and Mr. Pulkit Atal, Advocates.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

28.11.2025: Heard counsel for the appellant.

2. This appeal has been filed against the order dated 08.05.2025 by which

prayer 'A' in IA/1075/ND/2025 filed by the appellant has been dismissed. Ld.

Counsel for the appellant submits that the Adjudicating Authority vide its

order dated 30.01.2025 extended the CIRP period from 09.02.2025 to

11.03.2025 and for the extension of this CIRP period IA/537/ND/2025 was

filed by the RP in which in paragraph-5 it was pleaded that 'CoC intends to

make detailed negotiation with two PRAs which includes the appellant and for

that purpose the time was extended'. He submits that the prayer of the

appellant was to place the resolution plan of the applicant once again before

the CoC for negotiation which has been rejected. It is submitted that the

opportunity which was taken from the Adjudicating Authority was not utilised as per the own submissions of the Resolution Professional and the CoC. Ld.

Counsel for the RP submits that resolution plan has been approved on

22.02.2025 and the present application was filed by the appellant on

26.02.2025.

3. We have considered submissions of the Ld. Counsel for the parties and

perused the records.

4. The prayer 'A' made in the application was to place the resolution plan

of the application once again before the CoC for negotiation, the prayer in

compliance of the order dated 30.01.2025. The prayer made by appellant

clearly indicates that the plan was sought to be placed once again meaning

thereby once earlier it was considered. From the facts brought on the record it

is clear that the plan of the respondent/SRA was approved on 22.02.2025. In

fact by Prayer 'A' the appellant was seeking virtually to set aside the decision

taken by the CoC on 22.02.2025 which could not be permitted in the said

applications.

5. The counsel for the appellant lastly contended that the application for

approval of the plan was filed subsequent to filing of the application of the

appellant hence the said prayer could have been granted.

6. We are unable to agree with the submissions of the appellant, mere fact

that application for approval of the plan was filed subsequently cannot be a

ground to virtually set aside the resolution dated 22.02.2025. We thus do not

find any error in the order rejecting prayer 'A'. As far as prayer 'B' is

concerned the time was allowed to the RP to file a Reply. Counsel for

2 of 3 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1073 of 2025 Resolution Professional submitted that prayer 'B' has also been decided on

12.11.2025. With the above observations, appeal is dismissed.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) harleen/RR

3 of 3 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1073 of 2025