Shri. Sanjay Deshmukh vs Shri S Gopalakrishnan Resolution ...

Sanjay Deshmukh, ....Appellant Director (With Suspended Powers) of Daulat Agro (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs.

S Gopalakrishnan, ...Respondents RP for Daulat Agro (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

WITH

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1081 of 2025

In the matter of:

Sanjay Deshmukh, ....Appellant Director (With Suspended Powers) of Daulat Agro (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs.

S Gopalakrishnan, ...Respondents RP for Daulat Agro (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

For Appellant Mr. Sunil Fernandes, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sourabh Gupta, Mr. Akshansh Gupta, Advocates. For Respondents Mr. Pankaj Jain, Mr. Sarthak Dugar, Advocates for CoC./RP

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

24.07.2025: These two Appeals have been filed by the Suspended

Director of the Corporate Debtor challenging the order dated 27.05.2025

passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), 2

Mumbai Bench Court II, in IA (IBC) Plan/33/2025 as well as subsequent order

dated 03.07.2025 passed in IA (I.B.C) (Plan) No.33/MB/2025.

2. Brief facts necessary to be noticed for deciding both the Appeals are:

2.1. In the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process of the Corporate Debtor-

"M/s. Daulat Agro (India) Private Limited", the Resolution Plan submitted by

the Appellant as well as M/s. Amrit Fresh Private Limited. Appellant being a

Suspended Director of an MSME being eligible to participate has also given a

Resolution Plan and both the Resolution Plan of Appellant and M/s. Amrit

Fresh Private Limited came for consideration before the Committee of

Creditors (CoC). CoC, after considering both the plans, approved the plan of

M/s. Amrit Fresh Private Limited on 15.01.2025. Appellant's plan has value

of Rs.5.75 Crores whereas plan which was submitted by M/s. Amrit Fresh

Private Limited was valued at Rs.10.43 Crores. The Resolution Professional,

after approval of the plan by CoC, filed a plan approval application being 33 of

2025 which came for consideration before the Adjudicating Authority.

Appellant submitted before the Court that Appellant is ready to offer a higher

value of more than 30%. The Adjudicating Authority considering the offer of

the Appellant directed the Appellant to deposit the amount of Rs.2 Crore

within seven days so that the direction may be issued to consider the revised

plan of the Appellant afresh. Appellant however, could not deposit the amount

of Rs.2 Crore and deposited only Rs.75 lakhs. Adjudicating Authority, after

noticing this, on 27.05.2025 noticing that Appellant has failed to comply the

direction of depositing Rs.2 Crore, hence, opportunity granted to the promoter

was rejected and directed for further hearing. Company Appeal (AT)

(Insolvency) No.947 of 2025 has been filed challenging the order dated Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 947 of 2025 & 1081 of 2025 3

27.05.2025. Subsequently, after hearing the parties, Adjudicating Authority

by the impugned order dated 03.07.2025 has approved the plan against which

order Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1081 of 2025 is filed.

3. Learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant submits that the Appellant is

still ready to deposit Rs.2 Crores and there was only short delay in not

depositing the amount. Appellant is ready to offer higher amount to Rs.10.43.

Crores, hence, maximization of the value Adjudicating Authority ought to have

considered the plan of the Appellant.

4. Counsel for the Respondents refuting the submission of the Counsel for

the Appellant submits that the CoC has not agreed to consider the revised

offer of the Appellant. It is submitted that it was already communicated to the

Appellant that his revised offer cannot be considered.

5. We have considered the submissions of the parties and perused the

record.

6. From the facts, it is clear that the plan of the Appellant as well as M/s.

Amrit Fresh Private Limited was considered and CoC approved the plan of

M/s. Amrit Fresh Private Limited which had plan value of Rs.10.43 Crores and

Appellant had initially given a value of only Rs.5.75 Crores. It was at the stage

of consideration of the approval of the plan, Appellant appeared and prayed

that he is offering higher value on which opportunity was granted by the

Adjudicating Authority to deposit Rs.2 Crores to show his bonafide in which

he failed. We do not find any error in the order of the Adjudicating Authority

dated 27.05.2025 holding that Appellant having not deposited the amount,

opportunity granted is rejected and decided to proceed further. In the plan Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 947 of 2025 & 1081 of 2025 4

approval order, Adjudicating Authority has considered all aspects and found

the plan in accordance with Section 30(4) and has approved the plan. We do

not find any error in the order of the Adjudicating Authority approving the plan

submitted by the Successful Resolution Applicant.

7. In the present case, we do not find any ground to interfere with the

orders dated 27.05.2025 and 03.07.2025. Both the Appeals are dismissed.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) Anjali/nn

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 947 of 2025 & 1081 of 2025