Sudhir Balu Mehta (Suspended ... vs Shraddha Equinox Llp Through Its ...

For Appellant: Mr Krishnendu Datta, Sr Advocate, Mr Prakhar Tandon, Ms Alina Merim Mathew, Mr Vaibhav Vats, Advocates. For Respondent: Mr Kunal Godhwani, Mr Kunal Sinha, Ms. Khushi Singhal, Ms Kinjal Chadha, Advocates. Mr Deval Dighe, Advocate for R2.

ORDER

HYBRID MODE 25.11.2025: (IA No.6303/2025). This is an application filed by the applicant

with a prayer to set aside the impugned order dated 6th January, 2025 by taking

on record the consent terms dated 17th September, 2025 and consequently to

discharge the IRP from his duties directing him to handover the control of the

Corporate Debtor back to the suspended management thus releasing the

Corporate Debtor from the shackles of CIRP.

2

2. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel for the appellant vide order

dated 06.01.2025 in CP (IB) No.60/MB/2024, a petition under Section 9 of IBC

was admitted against M/s Shraddha Equinox LLP and it was admitted into CIRP.

The suspended director had filed the present appeal against the said impugned

order whereby vide order dated 16.01.2025, it was directed no further steps shall

be taken in pursuance of the order dated 06.01.2025. In the meantime, the IRP

had taken possession of the company and had made a publication for inviting

claims.

3. However, it is the submission of the learned senior counsel for the

appellant, besides the operational creditor viz Respondent No.2, no one else has

filed the claim and the claim of the Respondent No.2 has since been settled on

17.09.2025 which is on record from Page 17 to 84, with Annexures.

4. Mr. Kunal Godhwani, learned counsel for IRP is also present and he admits

the publication dated 07.01.2025 was made in newspaper of M/s Shraddha

Equinox LLP being admitted into CIRP and he has only received the claim of

Respondent No.2 and to this effect he has filed an affidavit dated 17.11.2025 of

which the following para 4, 6 and 7 are relevant:

4. That up to the last date of receipt of claim as per the said Public Announcement i.e. 20.01.2025, only one single claim was received from the Original Operational Creditor/original Petition, namely Fraser and Company Limited. Apart from Respondent No1. i.e. Fraser and Company Limited (original petitioner) no other claim has been received pursuant to the order dated 06.01.2025. Copies of the said emails are hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit B Colly.

3 6. That in the meantime, since both the Corporate Debtor and the Respondent No.2 (Fraser and Company Limited) had entered into a settlement, the Hon'ble NCLAT taking cognizance of the same vide its order in Interlocutory Application No.6303/2025 had directed the Interim Resolution Professional to submit an affidavit confirming that there is no claim filed/received except for the Original Petitioner namely Fraser and Company Limited. Accordingly, the IRP herein had filed an affidavit on 07th November, 2025, however, since the said affidavit is not as per the directions given by this Hon'ble Tribunal, the IRP was directed as per order dated 14 th November, 2025 to file a fresh affidavit in compliance of order dated 27th October, 2025. Therefore, the present fresh affidavit is being filed to confirm that no claim apart from the original petitioner has been received by the IRP pursuant to the admission order dated 06.01.2025. Copies of order dated 27.10.2025 and 14.11.2025 is hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit D.

7. I further state that the fees for the said assignment have been duly received by me in my capacity as the Interim Resolution Professional for the Corporate Debtor.

5. The parties were asked to file an application under Section 12A, but the

learned counsel for the appellant has taken us to order dated 24.09.2025 in

Ramchandra Krishnakant Ralkar, (suspended Director of Shraddha Landmark

Pvt Ltd) Vs Shraddha Landmark Pvt. Ltd & Anr., Company Appeal

(AT)((Insolvency) No.1316/2025 wherein under similar circumstances, I.A. No.

5826/2024 was filed to bring on record settlement between the parties and this

Tribunal passed the following order: -

6. It is submitted by the appellant that in pursuance of the publication issued by the IRP, only claim received in the CIRP is that of operational creditor, no other claim was filed. It is submitted by the IRP that only one claim of the operational creditor has been received.

7. In the facts of the present case where only claimant is the operational creditor who has already settled with the corporate debtor and has submitted that he does not want to pursue 4

proceeding under Section 9 against the corporate debtor. We are of the view that no useful purpose shall be served in directing for filing an application under Section 12A for withdrawal of the CIRP, there being only sole claimant who has already settled.

8. We thus are of the view that in the facts of the present case, I.A. No. 5826/2025 is allowed. The settlement is taken on record. The CIRP against appellant stand closed. It is submitted that fee and expenses of the IRP has already been paid.

6. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel for the appellant, in the cited

case the company was a group company of Respondent No1 and it figures at Sl.

No.9 at Page 34 of the application dated 17.09.2025 and the company in the

order dated 24.09.2025 in Company Appeal (AT)(Ins) No.1316/2025 is also at Sl.

No.2 of the said list of company. Thus we see no impediment in allowing this

appeal and setting aside the impugned order. CIRP shall stand closed. Learned

counsel for the IRP shall hand over the possession of the Corporate Debtor to

the Board of the Company. Learned counsel for the operational creditor has no

objection either, in allowing the appeal.

7. The IA No.6303/2025 is allowed. Consequently, the appeal is also allowed.

(Justice Yogesh Khanna) Member (Judicial)

(Mr. Ajai Das Mehrotra) Member (Technical) Bm/rr