Sagar Stone Industries vs Sajjan Kumar Dokania

IN THE MATTER OF: Sagar Stone Industries ...Appellant

Versus

Sajjan Kumar Dokania & Ors. ...Respondents

Present: For Appellant : Present but appearance not marked. For Respondents : Mr. Vinod Chaurasia, Advocate for RP.

With

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 525 of 2025

IN THE MATTER OF: Sagar Stone Industries ...Appellant

Versus

Sajjan Kumar Dokania (RP) ...Respondent

Present: For Appellant : Present but appearance not marked. For Respondent : Mr. Vinod Chaurasia, Advocate.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

28.03.2025: These two appeals have been filed the Resolution Applicant

challenging the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority dated 21.02.2025

in I.A. No.4977/ND/2024 and I.A. No.5769/ND/2024.

2. In the resolution process of the Corporate Debtor - Jabalpur MSW Pvt.

Ltd. the resolution plans were invited. Appellant was one of the Resolution

Cont'd.../ 2

Applicant and he submitted his plan. Ten resolution plans including

resolution plan of the Appellant and other Resolution Applicants were

considered by the CoC. On 11.06.2024, the CoC considered the plan of the

Appellant and approved the resolution plan of the Successful Resolution

Applicant with 100% vote share. The Resolution Professional filed an

application being I.A. No.36/2024. Appellant has filed I.A. No.4977/ND/2024

and I.A. No.5769/ND/2024. By I.A. No.4977/ND/2024, Appellant prayed for

rejection of the approval of Resolution Plan and by I.A. No.5769/ND/2024,

Appellant sought direction IBBI to initiate enquiry against the Resolution

Professional. Both the applications were heard and by the impugned order

has been rejected. The plan approval application - I.A. No.36/2024 is

reserved for orders by the Adjudicating Authority.

3. Learned counsel for the Appellant challenging the order contends that

the Resolution Applicant was never informed about the rejection of his plan

and approval of plan of SRA. It is submitted that the CoC extended the time

for consideration of Resolution Plan and had not resorted to challenge

process.

4. Learned counsel for the Resolution Professional submits that the

Appellant was communicated about the decision on 15.06.2024 and was also

informed about the email of the SRA. Learned counsel for the Resolution

Professional submits that Appellant has also congratulated the SRA via email.

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.524 of 2025 and 525 of 2025 3

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

and perused the record.

6. In so far as submission of the Appellant that he was never

communicated about rejection of his plan and decision to approve plan of

SRA, the Resolution Professional has refuted the said submission of the

Appellant and submitted that Appellant was communicated telephonically.

We are of the view that the mere fact that any written communication of

rejection of Appellant's plan was not sent shall have no effect on the resolution

passed by the CoC approving the Resolution Plan. Appellant's plan admittedly

was considered as one of the Resolution Applicant and CoC has approved the

Plan of the SRA. The commercial wisdom of the CoC in approving the

Resolution Plan cannot be interfered with at the instance of the Appellant.

7. Coming to the second submission advanced by the Appellant that CoC

has revised the plan more than once in violation of Regulation 39(1A) of the

CIRP Regulations 2016 which provides that plan cannot be permitted to be

revised more than once. He further submits that challenge mechanism was

not resorted to while permitting revision of plan.

8. Regulation 39(1A) is a regulation which provides that Resolution

Professional shall not permit modification to resolution plan more than once,

which regulation, however, does not bind the CoC and the CoC has unfettered

right to ask for revision of plan or negotiate with all Resolution Applicants

once or more. In so far as holding challenge mechanism, it is an enabling

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.524 of 2025 and 525 of 2025 4

mechanism for the CoC for value maximisation and not holding challenge

mechanism cannot be a ground on which approval of plan can be questioned.

10. We are of the view that the Adjudicating Authority has not erred in

rejecting both the applications. There is no merit in the appeals. Both

Appeals are dismissed.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)

[Arun Baroka] Member (Technical) Archana/nn

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.524 of 2025 and 525 of 2025