Sanjeev Kumar Jalan vs Amit Metaliks Limited & Ors

IN THE MATTER OF: Committee of Creditors of Ankit Metal & Power Ltd. Through, Assets Care & Reconstruction Enterprise Ltd. ...Appellant Versus Amit Metaliks Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents

Present: For Appellant : Mr. Arun Kathpalia, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Udit Mendiratta, Mr. Prithvi Sinha and Ms. Apeksha Singh, Advocates.

For Respondents : Mr. Niranjan Reddy, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rahul Jajoo and Ms. Kajal Dalal, Advocates for R-1.

Mr. Ramji Srinivasan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ankur Singhi, Ms. Anika Bajpai, Piyasi P., Mr. Arjun Bhatia, Ms. Shefali Munde and Ms. Nishi Yadav, Advocates for R-3/RP.

WITH

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 606 of 2025

IN THE MATTER OF: Sanjeev Kumar Jalan ...Appellant Versus Amit Metaliks Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents

Present: For Appellant : Mr. Ramji Srinivasan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ankur Singhi, Ms. Anika Bajpai, Piyasi P., Mr. Arjun Bhatia, Ms. Shefali Munde and Ms. Nishi Yadav, Advocates.

For Respondents : Mr. Niranjan Reddy, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rahul Jajoo and Ms. Kajal Dalal, Advocates for R-1. ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

21.04.2025: These two appeals have been filed against an order dated

09.04.2025 passed by the adjudicating authority (National Company Law

Tribunal, Kolkata Bench) in I.A. No. 453, 504 & 545/2025 in C.P. (IB) No.

91/2023. Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 606/2025 has been filed by the

Resolution Professional (RP), whereas, Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) Nos. 599 -

601/2025 have been filed by the Committee of Creditors (CoC). Learned

counsel for the appellant submits that appeal filed by the RP be confined to

the order passed in I.A. No. 453/2025. CoC aggrieved by all the three orders

dated 09.04.2025 passed in all the three applications have come up in these

appeals.

2. The present is a case where Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process

(CIRP) against the corporate debtor has commenced on 03.05.2024 and in the

CIRP challenge process has already proceeded for 62 rounds where one of the

resolution applicants was M/s. Amit Metaliks Ltd.

3. During the process when 62 rounds were already completed, I.A. No.

453/2025 was filed by Amit Metaliks seeking amendment in the information

memorandum and several other prayers and stay of the challenge process till

the land survey is contended. The principal pleadings in the application was

that company has more land as to the one which is shown in the information

memorandum and the RP has not correctly recorded the details of entire land

in the information memorandum and the plant and machinery is located in

the larger area.

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 599 - 601 & 606 of 2025 2 of 5

4. I.A. No. 504/2025 was preferred by Jai Shree Steels Pvt. Ltd. an another

resolution applicant praying for stay of the CIRP on the ground that

description of the property of the corporate debtor is incorrect.

5. I.A. No. 545/2025 was filed by the RP seeking extension for further

period of 60 days. Adjudicating authority by the impugned order has allowed

I.A. No. 545/2025 which order is not under challenge in these appeals. The

limited challenge in the appeal is with regard to directions issued in paragraph

44 of the impugned order which is as follows:

"44. Regarding replacement of the RP, an interlocutory application being I.A. (IB) No. 524/KB/2025 has been preferred already. Having noted the conduct of the present RP- Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Jalan, we direct his replacement in one week. In the event, the CoC is not able to replace the RP, we would appoint an RP in place of the present one. For the purpose, we direct the I.A. (IB) No. 524/KB/2025 to be listed on 22nd April 2025."

6. Another application which need to be noticed is I.A. No. 524/KB/2025

which was filed by Amit Metaliks praying for replacement of the RP which

application has been directed to be listed on 22.04.2025.

7. After the order dated 09.04.2025, the CoC has held its meeting on

11.04.2025 and with regard to change of the RP, CoC has taken a decision to

not replace the RP and file an appeal against the order by which CoC was

directed to replace the RP.

8. The adjudicating authority by impugned order has also directed for land

survey which directions has been contained in paragraph 40 in I.A. No.

453/2025, which directions are as follows:

"40. For the purpose, a land survey may be conducted at the earliest to ascertain the correct extant of land, factory premises, location of the plant and machinery Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 599 - 601 & 606 of 2025 3 of 5 available for the CIR Process with proper demarcation of leasehold and freehold land and that of third parties over which the plant or factory of the corporate debtor is located."

9. We have also heard learned Sr. counsel Mr. Reddy appearing for the

Amit Metaliks.

10. We have considered the submissions of counsel for the parties and

perused the records.

11. From the facts which has been brought on the record in the appeal, it

is clear that CIRP process against the corporate debtor has not yet been

completed and challenge process which has been commenced but has been

stayed by the NCLT, in view of the application 453/2025 filed by the Amit

Metaliks and the land survey has been already directed.

12. We have noted in I.A. 524/KB/2025 filed by Amit Metaliks directing for

replacement of RP, which application is pending and has been directed to be

listed on 22.04.2025. The grievance of learned counsel appearing for the RP

is that to the averments made in the application RP has already filed a reply

to the I.A. 524/2025 and placed its case to the effect that information provided

in the information memorandum were as per the records of the corporate

debtor and that issue has yet to be considered in the application which is

posted on 22.04.2025.

13. We have also noticed that adjudicating authority itself has directed for

land survey in paragraph 40 as noted above. Affidavit was also filed by the

suspended director which has been noticed in the order of the adjudicating

authority.

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 599 - 601 & 606 of 2025 4 of 5

14. We thus are of the view that in view of the facts of the case, adjudicating

authority has rightly directed for land survey and in effect no grievance has

been raised to the land survey by the RP or the CoC in the present case.

15. In view of the facts of the case, we are of the view that ends of justice

be served by directing the adjudicating authority to consider replacement of

the RP in I.A. No. 524/KB/2025 after the land survey is completed. We thus

are of the view that direction of the adjudicating authority in paragraph 44 to

replace the RP cannot be sustained at this stage as well as the observations

made in the impugned order against the RP.

16. We make it clear that challenge process being held up, in view of the

aforesaid facts, the said challenge process may be resumed as soon as the

survey report comes and decision is taken on I.A. 524/KB/2025. We clarify

that we have not expressed any opinion on any of the issue raised in the

appeal and it is for the adjudicating authority to take a decision in accordance

with law.

Both the appeals are disposed of accordingly.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Arun Baroka] Member (Technical) himanshu/nn

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 599 - 601 & 606 of 2025 5 of 5