Suman Kumar Verma vs Rajasthan State Industrial ...

IN THE MATTER OF: Suman Kumar Verma, RP ...Appellant

Versus

Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Ltd. (RIICO) & Ors. ...Respondents

Present: For Appellant : Mr. Mohit Nandwani, Advocate for RP. For Respondents : Mr. Mitul Jain, Advocate for R-1. Ms. Mily Ghoshal, Advocate for R-2.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

02.02.2026: Heard learned counsel for the Appellant. This appal has

been filed against order dated 12.09.2025 passed by the Adjudicating

Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Mumbai Bench-I in I.A. No.1718

of 2025. IA was filed by the Appellant - Resolution Professional praying for

reliefs as quoted in Para 1 of the order, which is as follows:

"1. This Application IA 1718/2025 was filed by Suman Kumar Verma, the Resolution Professional ("Applicant/RP") of Krystal Stone. Exports Limited ("Corporate Debtor") under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ("Code") r/w Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules, 2016 in Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process ("CIRP") for re-allotment of the cancelled land by Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Limited (in short "RIICO" or "Respondent No. 1") after taking their dues. The Applicant has sought following reliefs:

a) To order the respondent to reallot the land in favour of the Corporate debtor after taking their dues as cancellation done on 31.05.2000 is never enforced and is not in accordance with the specified procedure as per RIICO land Disposable Rules and no third party right has been created;

b) To allow waiver of interest and other penalties in calculating dues by the Respondent no 1;

c) To direct the Respondent to provide all relevant information, documents, orders passed by them till date in compliance of the section 17(2) (d) of the IB Code, 2016;

d) To direct the Respondent to facilitate the successful buyer in transferring property in his name within 15 days of filing the application to Respondent no 1 or within such period as this Hon'ble Adjudicating Authority deems fit;

e) Pass such other orders and instructions as this Hon'ble Adjudicating Authority deems fit and proper in the interest of Justice, equity and fair play;"

2. Relevant facts necessary to be noticed for deciding this appeal are:

2.1 Respondent No.1 was granted a lease deed in the year 1995

pertaining to Dausa land, which lease was terminated on 31.05.2000

much prior to commencement of CIRP against the Corporate Debtor.

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1858 of 2025 2 of 3 2.2 CIRP against the Corporate Debtor was initiated in the year 2019

(first CIRP) and after setting aside of the said CIRP, fresh CIRP was

initiated in 2024.

2.3 An application was filed by the Resolution Professional in 2025

praying for aforesaid reliefs. The direction which was sought by the

Resolution Professional was direction to the Respondent No.1 to

reallocate the land in favour of the Corporate Debtor after taking their

dues.

3. When the lease was cancelled in the year 2000, we fail to see any reason

for making any application by the Resolution Profession to direct for

reallocation of the plot in favour of the Corporate Debtor. The Termination

Letter dated 31.05.2000 was never interfered with or set aside, therefore, no

direction could have been issued by the Adjudicating Authority for

reallocating the land favour of the Corporate Debtor and the Adjudicating

Authority has rightly rejected the said prayer of the Resolution Professional

by the impugned order. There is no merit in the appeal. Appeal is dismissed.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) Archana/md

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1858 of 2025 3 of 3