Sandeep Goel (Erstwhile Resolution ... vs M/S Anugraham Builders Successful ...

IN THE MATTER OF: Sandeep Goel, (Erstwhile RP in CIRP of Sarvottam Realcon Pvt. Ltd.) ...Appellant Versus Anugraham Builders, Successful Resolution Applicant ...Respondent

Present: For Appellant : Mr. Ankur Mittal and Ms. Sabhya Jain, Advocates.

For Respondent : Mr. Kunal Godhwani, Advocate for SRA.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

22.07.2025 : The erstwhile RP of the corporate debtor has moved this

appeal to which the SRA is arrayed as a sole respondent.

2. On 30.07.2024, the adjudicating authority has approved the resolution

plan submitted by the respondent-SRA. In October 2024, the RP/appellant

herein, took out an application in I.A. No.5446/2024 before the adjudicating

authority for rectifying certain figures in the resolution plan. The details of

the rectification which the RP requires is as below:

S. No. Recorded in To be rectified Reference the order dated 30.07.2024

1. Para 7.5 - Total CIRP Cost In the minutes "Total till 30.11.2022 is of 20th COC Outstanding Rs. 1,28,06,744 meeting dated CIRP Cost till 24.12.2022 30.11.2022 is annexed as Rs.89,33,351.

ANNEXURE -

A5.

2. Para 7.5 - CIRP Cost for In the minutes "CIRP Cost period of of 20th COC from 1.12.2022 to meeting dated 01.12.2023 is 30.06.2023 is 24.12.2022 estimated to estimated to annexed as Rs.60,00,000" Rs.60,00,000 ANNEXURE -

A5.

3. Para 5.5 - The Para 4 of clause In the Corporate 3.3 of resolution addendum to Debto has also plan states that the Resolution paid Rs. an amount of Plan dated 1,05,00,000/- Rs.1,05,00,000/- 12.12.2022 as security is deposited by annexed as deposit to ALT the CD as ANNEXURE -

Society and security deposit A6. ALT Society is to ALT Society. required to The same is as refund the per information same upon provided in MOU hand over of and any change 182 flats. in the same is to be verified and confirmed by RP. The same not have any bearing on the implementation of the Resolution Plan.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that all these figures have

been rectified by the CoC in earlier meetings and only thereafter the

adjudicating authority was moved for approving the resolution plan.

However, the aforesaid rectification as was approved by the CoC was omitted

to be carried out in the resolution plan when the same was placed before the

adjudicating authority. It is in these circumstances the adjudicating

authority has approved the resolution plan vide its order dated 30.07.2024

but without the aforesaid rectification.

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 973 of 2025 2 of 4

4. It is hence the appellant had taken out I.A. No. 5446/2024 in October

2024 and this is dismissed on the ground that as per the provisions of the

IBC, any application for rectification could be made only within 30 days for

the passing of the order.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that IBC per se does not

stipulate any time within which the adjudicating authority may be

approached for rectification of any orders. On the other hand, this is provided

in Rule 154 of the NCLT Rules, 2016 and it reads as below:

"154. Rectification of Order. -

(1) Any clerical or arithmetical mistakes in any order of the Tribunal or error therein arising from any accidental slip or omission may, at any time, be corrected by the Tribunal on its own motion or on application of any party by way of rectification. (2) An application under sub-Rule (1) may be made in Form No. NCLT-9 within two years from the date of the final order for rectification of the final order not being an interlocutory order."

He submitted that while Rule 154(2) provides two orders time for

rectifying any final order, whereas, the appellant has moved the Tribunal

within about 3 months from the date of the final order.

6. Respondent/SRA offers no contest.

7. After hearing the submissions of the appellant and after perusing the

appeal papers, we are satisfied there is merit in submission of the counsel

appellant. Indeed, in the Order of the adjudicating authority which is now

under challenge, no specific provisions of IBC is mentioned, whereas, the

appellant submits that this is regulated by Rule 154 of NCLT Rules, 2016 and,

inasmuch as the appellant has filed his rectification petition within about

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 973 of 2025 3 of 4 three months from the date of the Order of the adjudicating authority

approving the resolution plan on 30.07.2024, this Tribunal considers that the

adjudicating authority ought to have considered the appellant's IA No.

5446/2024 favourably.

8. In conclusion, this Tribunal allows this appeal, sets aside the order of

the adjudicating authority dated 09.05.2025 in I.A. No. 5446/2024 in C.P.

(IB) No. 901(ND)/2020 and require the adjudicating authority to hear the

parties on merits and disposed of the same as expeditiously as possible

preferably within four weeks.

Appeal disposed of accordingly.

[Justice N. Sesha Sayee] Member (Judicial)

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) himanshu/nn

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 973 of 2025 4 of 4