Sandeep Garg vs Dmi Finance Private Limited

IN THE MATTER OF: Sandeep Garg ...Appellant

Versus

DMI Finance Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. ...Respondents

Present: For Appellant : Mr. Manish Paliwal and Ms. Megha Yadav, Advocates

For Respondent : Mr. Vipul Ganda, Ms. Avnika Mishra, Mr. Ishan Upadhya, Ms. Nitu Barik and Ms. Ishu Bansal, Advocates for R-1.

Ms. Prachi Johri, Advocate for R-2/RP.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

16.05.2025 This Appeal has been filed against the order dated

18.02.2025 by which order Adjudicating Authority has appointed Resolution

Professional in Section 95 Application filed by the Financial Creditor.

2. Learned Counsel for the Appellant challenging the order submits that

the notice which is claimed to have been issued for invoking the guarantee

was not issued to the Appellant i.e. the Guarantor and hence in the

application no RP should have been appointed because application was not

completed.

3. Mr. Vipul Ganda, Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent

contended that the guarantee which was mentioned in the application was

incorrect and subsequently, it was replaced by filing Additional Affidavit.

4. We have heard Learned Counsel for the parties.

5. We have looked into the application filed under Section 95 where in the

list of date the date of notice dated 03.01.2020 is mentioned as notice for

invocation of guarantee notice and another demand notice has been

mentioned on 09.07.2022 which is notice under Rule 7 of 2019 Rule. Learned

Counsel for the Appellant has also relied on a judgment of this Tribunal in

Canara Bank Vs. Babulal Gumanlal Jain in Company Appeal (AT)

(Insolvency) No. 297 of 2025 decided on 12.03.2025.

6. We have considered submission of Counsel for the parties and perused

the record.

7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dilip B Jiwrajka Vs. Union of India &

Ors. in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1281 of 2021 which have been noticed in

para 3 of the order has laid down that all adjudicatory issues need to be

considered at the time of admission or rejection application under Section

100. The submission which is sought to be raised by the Appellant that the

invocation of guarantee dated 03.01.2020 was not issued to the Appellant is

an adjudicatary issue of facts, which need to be considered at the time when

Adjudicating Authority enters into issue for admission for rejection of the

Application.

8. We thus, are of the view that at the stage when RP has been appointed

and the order under challenge is the order appointing the Resolution

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 539 of 2025 2 of 3 Professional, the issue raised by the Appellant need not be considered at this

stage, and it is open for the Appellant and the Respondent to make his

objection and make submission before the Adjudicating Authority when the

application comes for admission or rejection at the stage under Section 100.

We thus, this stage are not inclined to entertain this appeal with the

observation as above, the Appeal is Dismissed.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)

[Arun Baroka] Member (Technical) pks/nn

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 539 of 2025 3 of 3