Sanjay Kumar Gupta (Resolution ... vs Platinum Blue Estates Llp
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 795 of 2026
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Adjudicating Authority's observation that a party is attempting to play fraud on the Tribunal empowers the Tribunal to issue any appropriate direction, including the appointment of an independent valuer to re-value the corporate debtor's assets where the resolution plan's valuation appears highly undervalued and the true position has not been placed on record.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE MATTER OF: Sanjay Kumar Gupta (Resolution Professional of ...Appellant Corporate Debtor)
Versus
Platinum Blue Estates LLP ...Respondent
Present: For Appellant : Mr. Prashant Thakre, Advocate. For Respondent : Ms. Priyanka Vora, Mr. Kushagra Dash, Mr. Aditya Raj, Advocates.
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
30.04.2026: Heard learned counsel for the Appellant. This appeal has
been filed against order dated 13.03.2026 by which the Adjudicating
Authority passed an order directing for appointing an independent valuer. In
Para 5 and 6 following has been directed:
"5. The Resolution Plan is exfacie highly undervalued and the true and correct picture has not been bought on record. It appears that Respondent and Cliff Cornwell LLP are attempting to play fraud on this Hon'ble Tribunal.
6. After hearing the parties, we are of the considered view that a third valuer ought to be appointed from the panel of the IBBI. In the circumstances, we deem it appropriate to appoint M/s Adroit Appraisers & Research Private Limited, having Registration No. IBBI/RV-E/O1 /2020/ 121 (Email:
info@adroitvluation.com), to carry out the valuation in the present case."
Cont'd.../
2. This appeal has been filed by the Resolution Professional. Learned
counsel for the Appellant submits that the Respondent No.1 had no locus to
file application for directing for valuation. It is submitted that Respondent
No.1 themselves has appointed some Architect to value the assets, which has
no meaning and relevance.
3. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the
Appellant and perused the record.
4. The Adjudicating Authority in Para 5 has observed that the Respondent
and Cliff Cornwell LLP are attempting to play fraud on the Tribunal. When
observation has been made that parties are trying to play fraud, the Court
has every jurisdiction to issue any direction. In these circumstances, we do
not find any reason to interfere with the order by which Valuer has been
appointed by the Adjudicating Authority. We, thus, are not satisfied that any
ground has been made out to interfere with the order. Appeal is dismissed.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Indevar Pandey] Member (Technical) Archana/md
Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 795 of 2026 2 of 2
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free