Shiva Asphaltics Products Private ... vs Arvint Mittal

IN THE MATTER OF: Shiva Asphaltic Products Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellant Versus Arvind Mittal, The RP of APS Infra Engineers Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondent

Present: For Appellant : Mr. Gaurav Modwil, Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr. Gaurav Joshi, Advocate for RP.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

04.02.2026 : I.A. No. 7419/2025

1. Sufficient cause has been shown for condonation of delay in filing of the

appeal.

Delay condoned.

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No.1906/2025

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel for

the Resolution Professional (RP).

2. This appeal has been filed against an order dated 08.09.2025, by which

order, adjudicating authority rejected I.A. No.1437/ND/2025, by which I.A.,

the appellant has prayed for following reliefs:

"a) Allow the present application and direct the Mr. Arvind Mittal, Resolution Professional of APS Infra Engineering Private Limited, to place the Resolution Plan submitted by the Applicant before the Committee of Creditors for consideration;

b) Pass any other order that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to pass in the present case."

3. The adjudicating authority has taken note of the fact that on the

request, extension was granted to file resolution plan of 10 days and the

Minutes of the 6th Committee of Creditors (CoC) Meeting dated 17.02.2025

has been noted in the order. Subsequently, on the second occasion, appellant

again requested for extension of time which was again considered and the

CoC decided not to accept the prayer for the three reasons as noted by the

CoC in its Minutes which are as follows:

"a. Resolution Plan submitted by Shiva was after the timeline specified for submission of Resolution Plan; b. Shiva had also failed to submit the EMD required alongwith the Resolution Plan;

c. Shiva had already, on previous occasion requested for ex-tension in timeline for submission of Resolution Plan and on the.ir request CoC had extended the timelines for submission of Resolution Plan."

4. Learned counsel for the appellant challenging the order submits that

due to technical glitch, he could not submit the plan and there was delay of

only 1 day. He further submitted that Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) although

was not submitted along with the plan but EMD was sent by email on next

day.

5. Learned counsel for the RP submits that resolution plan has already

been approved by the CoC with 100% voting share and application is pending

for approval of the plan. The appellant was only a Resolution Applicant (RA)

and his only right was to consider his plan, in spite of extension granted for

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1906 of 2025 & I.A. No. 7419 of 2025 2 of 3 10 days when plan was not submitted, appellant cannot as a matter of right

claim extension of further time and further the reasons have been given by

the CoC for not accepting the request for extension of time, which we are of

the view was on valid reasons. The CoC decided to proceed with plan of 4

Prospective Resolution Applicants (PRAs) who had submitted within timelines

and has proceeded and approved the plan as now submitted by RP.

6. We thus are of the view that no grounds have been made out to interfere

with the order impugned.

The appeal is dismissed.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) himanshu/md

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1906 of 2025 & I.A. No. 7419 of 2025 3 of 3