Shri Balaji Holdfin Pvt Ltd vs Mr. Kanchan Dutta Resolution ...
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 12 of 2026
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Appellate Tribunal, on the appeal against an order treating an application as infructuous, held that where the Resolution Professional has been replaced, an application seeking the removal or replacement of the Resolution Professional, and the relief sought in it, becomes infructuous, and the order dismissing it on that basis is not erroneous. Where a fresh Resolution Professional has issued Form G, the corporate insolvency resolution process may continue in pursuance of that Form, but the Resolution Professional must not place any resolution plan before the Committee of Creditors while a pending application challenging the exclusion of a claimant from the Committee of Creditors remains undisposed of.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Shri Balaji Holdfin Pvt. Ltd. ....Appellant Vs.
Kanchan Dutta & Anr. ...Respondents For Appellant Mr. Mrinal Harshvardhan, Mr. Naman Singhal, Mr. Ritik Vashisht, Mr. Akshay Singh, Ms. Rituparna Patra, Advocates. For Respondents Mr. Abhinav Agrawal, Mr. Piyush Bhardwaj, Advocates for R1 Mr. Rahul Auddy, Advocate.
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
07.01.2026: Heard Counsel for the Appellant as well as Counsel
appearing for the Resolution Professional- Respondent No.1.
2. This Appeal has been filed by the Appellant challenging the order dated
11.11.2025 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law
Tribunal) Kolkata Bench, Kolkata in IA No.270/KB/2025 along with Contempt
Petition No.04 of 2025 and IA No.1090 of 2025. The Appellant's case is that in
IA No.270 of 2025, the Adjudicating Authority has held that in view of the
Resolution Professional having been replaced, the application has become
infructuous. The submission of the Appellant is that the earlier Resolution
Professional has accepted the claim of the Appellant as a Financial Creditor
and allocated 71% voting share in the Committee of Creditors (CoC). However,
after CoC meeting was held, Appellant was ousted from the CoC and was not 2
permitted to participate in the meeting of the CoC. Counsel for the Appellant
submitted that for decision of the IA No.270 of 2025, Appellant had to come
this Tribunal by filing an Appeal and several directions have been issued to
the Adjudicating Authority to decide IA No.270 of 2025 and thereafter the
application is decided as infructuous. He submits that Appellant has filed an
IA No.1878 of 2025 raising various prayers including illegal ousting of the
Appellant from the CoC which is pending consideration. It is submitted that
the new Resolution Professional has issued Form G on 05.11.2025 and in
event, the new Resolution Professional proceed with the CIRP process without
decision of the IA No.1878 of 2025, the Appellant shall suffer irreparable loss.
3. Counsel for the Respondent No.1 submits that this Appeal has become
infructuous since Resolution Professional has been replaced and main prayer
in the application IA No.270 of 2025 for considering the agenda for
replacement of the Resolution Professional and other prayers for deciding two
other applications have already been decided. He however, submits that the
application IA No.1878 of 2025 has been filed only on 11.12.2025. It shall be
open for the Appellant to press for the decision of IA No.1878 of 2025 before
the Adjudicating Authority.
4. Considering the facts of the present case and submissions made by the
parties, we are of the view that in view of the Resolution Professional having
been replaced, we do not find any error in the order of the Adjudicating
Authority dismissing the application IA No.270 of 2025 as infructuous.
However, the submission of the Appellant that IA No.1878 of 2025 being
pending, the Resolution Professional be directed not to proceed with the CIRP
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 12 of 2026 & I.A. No. 45 of 2026 3
process. After the replacement, the new Resolution Professional has issued
Form G dated 05.11.2025, we are of the view that the process in pursuance of
Form G may go on, however, till IA No.1878 of 2025 is not disposed of the
Resolution Professional shall not put any Resolution Plan for voting before the
CoC.
5. In view of the above, we dispose of the Appeal with the above direction.
Counsel for the Appellant submits that he shall not take any adjournment in
IA No.1878 of 2025.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) Anjali/md
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 12 of 2026 & I.A. No. 45 of 2026
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