Star Paper Mills Limited vs Stone India Ltd

IN THE MATTER OF: Star Paper Mills Ltd. ...Appellants Versus Stone India Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents

Present: For Appellant : Mr. Arjun Asthana, Mr. Sidhartha Sharma and Ms. Shubhangi Gupta, Advocates. For Respondents : Mr. Abhijeet Sinha Sr. Advocate with Mr. Raghavendra Mohan Bajaj, Mr. Kanav Agarwal, Mr. Sumeet Agarwal, Mr. Saikat Sarkar and Mr. Supriyo Gole, Advocates for R1 and R2.

Mr. Rishav Banerjee, Ms. Madhuja Burman, Ms. Anoushka Dey and Mr. Moulinath Mitra, Advocates for R3.

WITH Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1480 of 2025 & I.A. No. 5793 of 2025

IN THE MATTER OF: G.P. Goenka & Anr. ...Appellants Versus Stone India Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents

Present: For Appellant : Mr. Arjun Asthana, Mr. Sidhartha Sharma and Ms. Shubhangi Gupta, Advocates. For Respondents : Mr. Abhijeet Sinha Sr. Advocate with Mr. Raghavendra Mohan Bajaj, Mr. Kanav Agarwal, Mr. Sumeet Agarwal, Mr. Saikat Sarkar and Mr. Supriyo Gole, Advocates for R1 and R2.

Mr. Rishav Banerjee, Ms. Madhuja Burman, Ms. Anoushka Dey and Mr. Moulinath Mitra, Advocates for R3. ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

31.10.2025: I.A. No. 5731, 5732 of 2025

These are the applications praying for condonation of 12 days delay in

filing the appeal. We find sufficient cause which has been shown in

paragraph- 4, 5 & 6 of the application. Delay condoned.

CA (AT) (Ins) No. 1467 & 1468 of 2025

2. This appeal has been filed against the order dated 24.07.2025 passed

by the Adjudicating Authority by which IA No. 598 of 2024 filed by the

Resolution Professional has been allowed directing for taking possession of

the New Delhi Flat in question. The Adjudicating Authority has allowed

application. The counsel for the appellant challenging the order submits that

the mere fact in the balance sheet of financial year 2016-17 the flat in

question was shown in the ownership of the corporate debtor; 1/3rd share

cannot be treated to determination of the title of the corporate debtor and that

cannot be reason for issuing direction. It is further submitted that relief and

concession was prayed for by the successful resolution applicant which

concession also included this flat in question and the Adjudicating Authority

has not granted such relief and concession hence the application was not

maintainable.

3. The Ld. counsel appearing for the SRA as well as the erstwhile RP

submits that said flat was shown in the balance sheet of the CD and also

shown in the information memorandum as the asset of the corporate debtor

2 of 4 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1467 & 1468 of 2025 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1480 of 2025 hence there was no requirement of seeking any relief and concession and the

relief and concession which was not granted was with respect to dues and

concession which was required to be obtained from different governmental

authorities and the said relief and concession has nothing to do with the

present. It is further submitted that the CD's promoters themselves has filed

two affidavits before the NCLT by Mr. G.P. Goenka and Shrivardhan Goenka

who were promoters of the CD that this asset belong to the CD. The copy of

the affidavit has been handed over to the court by the Ld. Counsel for the

respondent. It is further submitted that the Goenka's are the promoters of the

appellant which is reflected in the Ministry of Corporate Affairs records and

the appeal is nothing but tactics to delay the taking possession of the flats

and creating hindrances in the CIRP.

4. We have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the

parties and perused the records.

5. It is not disputed that the asset in question was shown in the

information memorandum of the CD belonging to the CD. Balance sheet also

clearly record CDs asset. The relief and concession which has referred by the

appellant and order passed by the Adjudicating Authority clearly indicate that

Adjudicating Authority has denied the grant of relief and concession with

respect of such prayers which were to be considered by different

Governmental Authorities. The said relief and concession has nothing to do

with the asset which was part of the CD furthermore, the promoters of the CD

had filed their affidavit before the NCLT, copy of which has been produced.

3 of 4 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1467 & 1468 of 2025 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1480 of 2025 We fail to see that on what basis the appellant can challenge the order

impugned. We are satisfied that the appeal is nothing but an attempt to delay

the handing over the possession of the assets which belong to the CD. We

thus, are of the view that no grounds have been made out to interfere in the

impugned order. Appeal is dismissed.

CA (AT) (Ins) No. 1480 of 2025

Counsel for the appellant (G.P. Goenka) prays that he may be permitted

to withdraw the appeal. Prayer is allowed.

Appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) harleen/NN

4 of 4 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1467 & 1468 of 2025 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1480 of 2025