Shri Dutt India Private Limited vs Ashok Kumar Golecha

IN THE MATTER OF: Shri Dutt India Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellants Versus Ashok Kumar Golecha ...Respondents Liquidator of Spark Green Energy Satara Ltd.

Present: For Appellant : Ms. Aakashi Lodha and Mr. Rohit Gupta, Advocates. For Respondents : Mr. Prakhar Tandon and Mr. Agam H. Maloo, Advocates for Liquidator.

WITH Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 53 of 2025

IN THE MATTER OF: Shri Dutt India Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellants Versus Ashok Kumar Golecha ...Respondents Liquidator of Spark Green Energy Satara Ltd.

Present: For Appellant : Ms. Aakashi Lodha and Mr. Rohit Gupta, Advocates. For Respondents : Mr. Prakhar Tandon and Mr. Agam H. Maloo, Advocates for Liquidator.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

10.07.2025: Heard Ld. Counsel for the appellant and Ld. Counsel for

the Liquidator.

These two appeals have been filed against the same order dated

26.11.2024 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, Court-II in IA No. 1626 of 2024 and IA No. 3067 of 2024. In the liquidation

proceedings of M/s Spark Green Energy (Satara) Ltd. The appellant emerged

as Successful Auction Purchaser in e-auction held 16.10.2023 for which

reserve price was Rs.14.50 crores. The appellant paid the entire amount and

sale certificate was issued on 25.01.2024. Liquidator also handed over the

physical possession of the land, building and plant of the corporate debtor to

the appellant and assets proceeds were also distributed to the secured

creditors. IA No. 1626 of 2024 and IA No. 3067 of 2024 was filed by the

liquidator as well as appellant respectively praying for grant of relief and

concession. Ld. Adjudicating Authority heard both the applications and by

the impugned order has decided both the applications by granting various

reliefs and concessions and disposed of both the applications. Appellant

aggrieved by the order has come up in the appeal.

2. Shri Rohit Gupta Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellant at very outset

submits that the scope of appeal be confined only to observation of the

Adjudicating Authority contained in paragraph 28.10 where it has issued a

general directions with regard to claims which existed on the date of

liquidation commencement and has not been filed. He submits that the

Adjudicating Authority has rightly held that no claim filed with the liquidator

shall survive after consideration of same in accordance with Section 53, the

same direction ought to have also been made with regard to claims which

existed and have not filed.

2 of 4 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) Nos. 52 & 53 of 2025

3. We thus proceeded to consider the submission counsel for the

appellant only to the above extent.

4. Ld. Counsel appearing for the liquidator submits that liquidator also

support the submissions advanced by the appellant in the present appeal.

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

perused the record. Liquidation proceedings are governed by the IBBI

Liquidation Regulation 2016 which regulation provides for filing of the claim

as on liquidation commencement date. In the present case, the public

announcement was made by Liquidator. Regulation 16(2) clearly contemplate

that claim for debt or dues including interest as on the liquidation

commencement date is to be submitted. Any claim which was existing of a

claimant against the corporate debtor in the liquidation or liquidation

commencement date is contemplated to be filed and considered as per Section

53 as per the statutory scheme under Liquidation Regulation and IBC. When

the Adjudicating Authority has taken the view that "we conclude that no

claims filed with the liquidation shall survive after consideration of the same in

accordance with Section 53 of the Code." The Adjudicating Authority ought to

have also dealt with the said claim which were existing on the liquidation

commencement date and were not filed. Thus, the observation of the

Adjudicating Authority to the following effect "In relation to other claims, if

any, existed on the date of sale by the liquidator, but no claim had been filed, a

general direction cannot be issued that contradicts the terms of the Process

Document. As a result, the relief in general is not granted", cannot be

3 of 4 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) Nos. 52 & 53 of 2025 supported. We thus accept the submission made by counsel for the appellant

that no claim which existed on the date of sale by the liquidator and was not

filed cannot survive after distribution of the assets by the Liquidator. We thus

modify the paragraph- 28.10 to the above extent. Both the appeals are

disposed of accordingly.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) harleen/NN

4 of 4 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) Nos. 52 & 53 of 2025