Shripal Sevantilal Morakhia vs Bhrugesh Amin & Ors
- CitationComp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 944 of 2025
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where the Appellant's objections to a resolution plan have been canvassed and rejected in a separate application that has itself been dismissed, an appeal raising the same allegations against the plan becomes infructuous and may be dismissed as such, without the appellate tribunal further examining the merits, the appellant being left free to challenge the subsequent rejecting order in accordance with law.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 944 of 2025 & I.A. No. 3668 of 2025 IN THE MATTER OF: Shripal Sevantilal Morakhia ...Appellant(s)
Versus Bhrugesh Amin, RP of Smaaash Entertainment Pvt. ...Respondent(s) Ltd. & Ors. Present: For Appellant : Mr. Partho Sarkar, Advocate For Respondents : Ms. Avni Sharma, Mr. Azeem Parvez, Mr. Kunal Kaul, Ms. Fatima K, Advocates for R1 Mr. Rahul Dev, Advocate for R2 Mr. Gopal Jain, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Madhav Kanoria, Ms. Surbhi Pareek, Ms. Srideepa Bhattacharyya, Ms. Aparajita, Advocates for SRA
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
23.03.2026 Ld. Counsel for Appellant prays that he should be
permitted to file certain additional record.
The matter was taken on 16/03/2026, when this tribunal passed
following order :
ORDER
"Counsel for the respondent submits that in view of the subsequent order dated 17.02.2026 passed in I.A. No. 1985/MB/2025 and IA No. 69/Plan/2024 this appeal has become infructuous.
Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that appellant is taking steps to challenge the subsequent order and the order in this appeal be passed on the next date.
List this appeal on 23.03.2026."
2. Ld. Counsel for Respondent submits that in view of the subsequent
order dated 17/02/2026 passed in I.A 1985/MB/2025 this Appeal has
become infructuous.
3. This Appeal has been filed challenging the order passed by
Adjudicating Authority 07/05/2025 in I.A. 69 of 2024, by which the
Adjudicating Authority has approved the Resolution Plan.
4. Appellant has filed an Application objecting the Resolution Plan,
which was withdrawn and Appellant filed another Application, I.A.
1985/MB/2025 objecting to the approval of the Plan, which came to be
rejected by order dated 17/02/2026.
5. When the case was taken on 16/03/2026, today's date was fixed at
the request of the Appellant.
6. Today, when the Appeal is taken, Ld. Counsel for Appellant stated
that he wants to bring certain additional document on record.
7. We are of the view that the same allegations, were made against the
Resolution Plan in I.A 1985/MB/2025, which was sought to be canvassed in
this Appeal and the said application having been dismissed, for which the
Appellant took liberty to inform that he is challenging the subsequent order
by a separate Appeal. Be as it may.
8. We are of the view that this Appeal need not proceeded any further
and dismiss as infructuous.
9. It shall be open for the Appellant to challenge the subsequent order in
accordance with law.
2 of 3
10. Ld. Counsel for Resolution Professional submitted that Plan has been
fully implemented.
11. Appeal is dismissed.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) Prerana/md
3 of 3
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