Sandip Lod Personal Guarantor Of Sudhir ... vs Bank Of Maharashtra

IN THE MATTER OF: Sandip Lod, (Personal Guarantor of Sudhir Buildtech Pvt. Ltd.) ...Appellant Versus Bank of Maharashtra ...Respondent

Present: For Appellant : Mr. Rahul Chitnis and Ms. Shwetal Shepal, Advocates.

For Respondent :

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

14.08.2025 : This appeal has been filed against an order dated

09.05.2025 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai

Bench, Court - III appointing the Resolution Professional (RP) in Section 95

application filed by the Bank of Maharashtra.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was

appearing on earlier dates and could not appear on the date when matter was

closed for orders.

3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the

records.

4. Adjudicating authority in paragraph 14 of the order has relied on the

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of 'Dilip B. Jiwarajka'

Vs. 'Union of India & Ors.' in [Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1281/2021].

Paragraph 14 of the order is as follows:

"14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dilip B Jiwrajka Vs. Union of India & Ors. (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1281 of 2021) decided on 09.11.2023 upheld the constitutional validity of Sections 94 and 100 of the Code as follows-:

"xxx.....

3. No judicial adjudication is involved at the stages envisaged in Section 95 to Section 99 of the IBC;

4. The Resolution Professional appointed under Section 97 serves a facilitative role of collating all the facts relevant to the examination of the application for the commencement of the insolvency resolution process which has been preferred under Section 94 or Section

95. The report to be submitted to the Adjudicating Authority is recommendatory in nature on whether to accept or reject the application.

...xxx"

5. We are of the view that at the stage of appointment of RP no

adjudicatory issues are to be considered and appellant will have liberty to file

a reply to the reports received from the RP and can raise all issues in

accordance with the law.

6. In view of the aforesaid, we see no reason to keep the appeal pending.

Appeal dismissed.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Arun Baroka] Member (Technical) himanshu/nn

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1051 of 2025 2 of 2