Sunil Kumar Agarwal Rp Of Jayantilal ... vs State Bank Of India

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 423 of 2026 (Arising out of the Order dated 04.02.2026 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, in IA No. 1901 of 2024 in Company Petition (IB) No. 99 of 2021)

IN THE MATTER OF: Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Resolution Professional of Jayantilal Babulal Sanghvi Having its address at: 603/6, Devnandan Heights, Chandkheda, Near Podar School, New C.G. Road, Ahmedabad- 382424 ...Appellant

Versus State Bank of India Having its address at: Stressed Assets Management Branch, 2nd Floor, Paramsiddhi Complex, Opp. V.S. Hospital, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad- 380006, Gujarat ...Respondent

Present For Appellant: Mr. Atul Sharma, Mr. Pankaj Jain, Advocates. For Respondents: Ms. Nitu Chaturvedi, Advocate.

JUDGEMENT

(16.07.2026)

NARESH SALECHA, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

1. The present appeal has been filed by the Appellant i.e., Sunil Kumar

Agarwal, who is the Resolution Professional of Jayantilal Babulal Sanghvi Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 423 of 2026

("Corporate Debtor"), under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Code, 2016 ('Code') against the Order dated 04.02.2026 ("Impugned Order")

passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench

("Adjudicating Authority") in IA No. 1901 of 2024 in Company Petition (IB)

No. 99 of 2021.

State Bank of India, who is the Financial Creditor, is the Respondent herein.

2. The Appellant submitted that in the year 2021, the Respondent approached

the Appellant and sought consent for appointment as Resolution Professional in

connection with insolvency proceedings proposed against four personal

guarantors of the same Corporate Debtor, namely Sanghvi Forging and

Engineering Limited. The four proceedings included: (i) Mr. Jayantilal Babulal

Sanghvi - CP(IB) No. 99 of 2021; (ii) Mr. Babulal Sagarmal Sanghvi - CP(IB)

No. 93 of 2021; (iii) Mr. Naresh Babulal Sanghvi - CP(IB) No. 92 of 2021; and

(iv) Mr. Vikram Babulal Sanghvi - CP(IB) No. 100 of 2021.

3. The Appellant submitted that before accepting the assignment, terms

governing professional engagement were expressly discussed and agreed

between the parties. Under the agreed arrangement, professional fees were fixed

at Rs. 20,000/- per month per personal guarantor, payable from the date of

appointment until admission of the concerned guarantor into the insolvency

process. Additionally, aggregate professional fees of Rs. 14.80 Lakhs were fixed

collectively for all four guarantors for the initial period following admission.

Page 2 of 13

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 423 of 2026

4. The Appellant submitted that relying upon the agreed terms and the

appointment offered by the Respondent, the Appellant accepted the engagement

and commenced discharge of responsibilities attached to the office of Resolution

Professional. The Appellant contended that throughout the engagement,

extensive professional services were rendered including preparation and filing of

insolvency petitions, drafting and finalization of pleadings, management of

litigation strategy, attendance before judicial forums, addressing objections and

procedural requirements, maintaining stakeholder communications and ensuring

overall compliance with obligations under the Code.

5. The Appellant submitted that the role performed was not confined to filing

of petitions alone but extended to continuous administration and coordination

throughout the insolvency process. The Appellant was also required to coordinate

among creditors, monitor compliance requirements, prepare procedural

documentation and address practical issues arising during conduct of

proceedings.

6. The Appellant further submitted that invoices for professional services

were periodically raised strictly in accordance with the agreed fee structure and

transmitted to the Respondent. The Respondent accepted such invoices and

released payments from time to time without raising any contemporaneous

objection concerning either the entitlement of the Appellant or the basis of

calculation.

Page 3 of 13

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 423 of 2026

7. The Appellant submitted that in furtherance of the engagement, a petition

under Section 95 of the Code was filed against Mr. Jayantilal Babulal Sanghvi on

22.05.2021, which came to be registered on 16.06.2021. Pursuant thereto, the

Adjudicating Authority directed the Appellant to submit a report under Section

99 of the Code. The Appellant submitted that in complete compliance with the

directions issued, the Appellant submitted his report u/s 99 of the Code

recommending initiation of insolvency proceedings against the Personal

Guarantor and the same was accepted and taken on record by the Adjudicating

Authority.

8. The Appellant contended that for the period commencing from 21.06.2021

until 15.04.2024, professional fees payable in relation to the proceedings

concerning Mr. Jayantilal Babulal Sanghvi amounted to Rs. 7,97,680/-. Against

the said amount, only Rs. 2,43,867/- was paid, leaving an unpaid balance of Rs.

5,53,813/- despite continued performance of professional responsibilities.

9. The Appellant further contended that by Order dated 16.04.2024, the

Adjudicating Authority admitted the Personal Guarantor into insolvency and

directed the Appellant to issue public notice and proceed further in accordance

with law. Simultaneously, the Adjudicating Authority directed payment of Rs.

2,00,000/- towards fees and expenses incurred by the Appellant. The Appellant

submitted that despite the aforesaid judicial direction, the Respondent failed to

release the amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- and continued to withhold legitimate dues

of the Appellant. The Appellant further submitted that on 22.05.2024, a joint

Page 4 of 13 Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 423 of 2026

meeting of creditors concerning all four guarantors was convened wherein the

Appellant apprised the Committee of Creditors regarding pending professional

fees and requested ratification of the same.

10. The Appellant submitted that while one of the creditors, namely Bank of

Baroda, accepted and released its proportionate liability, the Respondent objected

and contended that payment of Rs. 9,75,467/- already released during November

2021 to June 2022 exhausted all liability. The Appellant submitted that the

Appellant clarified that the amount of Rs. 9,75,467/- exclusively related to

services rendered during the pre-admission period for all four guarantors

collectively and could not be treated as adjustment against continuing liabilities.

The Appellant further submitted that subsequent email correspondence dated

31.05.2024, 03.06.2024, and 10.06.2024 clearly reflects that despite repeated

explanations and clarifications furnished by the Appellant, the Respondent

persisted in refusing payment.

11. The Appellant submitted that substantial expenditure was also incurred

from personal resources to ensure uninterrupted conduct of the insolvency

process and compliance with statutory requirements. The Appellant submitted

that owing to persistent non-payment, the Appellant was constrained to file IA

No. 1901 of 2024 seeking payment of Rs. 6,92,252.04/- in relation to insolvency

proceedings concerning Mr. Jayantilal Sanghvi and aggregate pending fees of Rs.

28,29,581.26/- in respect of all connected proceedings. The Appellant further

Page 5 of 13 Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 423 of 2026

submitted that the Respondent contested the said application through reply dated

18.06.2025, following which pleadings stood completed.

12. The Appellant contended that thereafter the Adjudicating Authority by

Orders dated 05.12.2025 and 10.12.2025 directed filing of written submissions.

Importantly, neither order contained any requirement that written submissions be

filed on affidavit. The Appellant submitted that in compliance with the aforesaid

directions, written submissions were duly filed within the prescribed time and the

same bore the Appellant's signature and stamp on each page. The Appellant

submitted that when the matter was listed on 04.02.2026, arguments had already

concluded and the matter was listed only for reporting compliance concerning

filing of written submissions.

13. The Appellant submitted that during hearing, Counsel on his behalf

appearing virtually responded affirmatively to the query regarding filing of

written submissions. The Appellant submitted that when a subsequent query arose

regarding filing "by way of affidavit", owing to technical disruption and

continuation of the earlier exchange, an inadvertent response occurred; however,

immediate clarification was furnished that no affidavit had been filed and that no

such requirement existed. The Appellant submitted that the Impugned Order

records only part of the exchange and omits the clarification furnished

immediately thereafter, resulting in incorrect observations that "wrong

submissions" had been made. The Appellant submitted that there exists no

finding in the Impugned Order establishing deliberate falsehood, wilful

Page 6 of 13 Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 423 of 2026

suppression, intentional misconduct or abuse of process. No prejudice was caused

to any stakeholder and proceedings were never obstructed.

14. The Appellant further submitted that the entire foundation of the Impugned

Order is based upon a requirement never imposed by the Adjudicating Authority.

In absence of any direction requiring filing by affidavit, no finding of non-

compliance could legally arise. The Appellant submitted that the imposition of

costs of Rs. 1,00,000/- is arbitrary, disproportionate and unsupported by the

record. Further, the direction forwarding the Order to IBBI travels beyond the

scope of proceedings, particularly when no issue of professional misconduct or

regulatory breach arose for adjudication.

15. Concluding his arguments, the Appellant requested this Appellate Tribunal

to set aside the Impugned Order and allow this appeal and quash the costs of Rs.

1,00,000/-, set aside the direction to forward the Order to IBBI and grant such

other reliefs as deemed fit in the interests of justice.

16. Per contra, the Respondent-State Bank of India submitted that it is arrayed

only as a formal party in the present Appeal and no substantive, direct or

executable relief has been sought against the them in the present proceedings. The

grievance raised by the Appellant pertains exclusively to the observations and

directions issued by the Adjudicating Authority concerning imposition of costs

and related consequential directions arising out of proceedings conducted before

the Adjudicating Authority.

Page 7 of 13

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 423 of 2026

17. The Respondent submitted that the impugned direction relating to

imposition of costs upon the Appellant/Resolution Professional was passed by the

Adjudicating Authority in exercise of its judicial powers and discretion while

conducting proceedings before it. The present Respondent has neither sought nor

obtained any independent relief under the Impugned Order and no adjudication

affecting any independent rights or liabilities of the Respondent arises in the

present Appeal. In such circumstances, no independent cause of action survives

against the Respondent-State Bank of India in the present proceedings.

Accordingly, the Respondent requested this Appellate Tribunal to pass such

order(s) as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the

case and in the interest of justice.

Findings

18. It is the case of the Appellant that the Impugned Order dated 04.02.2026

passed by the Adjudicating Authority in IA No. 1901 of 2024 in CP(IB) No. 99

of 2021 is perverse whereby costs of Rs.1,00,000/- was imposed upon the

Appellant/Resolution Professional with further direction for forwarding a copy

of the order to the IBBI on the ground that the written submissions filed by the

Appellant were not supported by an affidavit and that wrong submissions had

been made before the Adjudicating Authority. We note that the Adjudicating

Authority observed that the written submissions had not been filed "by way of

affidavit as directed", further observed that "wrong submissions" had been made

Page 8 of 13 Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 423 of 2026

before the Tribunal and also observed that the written submissions did not

disclose as to who had filed the same. We find observations and consequential

directions proceeded on basis of its earlier orders by the Adjudicating Authority

dated 10.12.2025 and 05.12.2025. It has been brought out that written

submissions, unless specifically directed, are not ordinarily required to be

supported by an affidavit.

19. At this stage, we take into consideration both orders dated 05.12.2025 and

10.12.2025 passed by the Adjudicating Authority which read as under: -

Page 9 of 13

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 423 of 2026

20. From above, we find that order dated 05.12.2025 shows that the direction

regarding filing of an affidavit was confined only to the issue concerning fees

paid or unpaid by SBI to the Appellant. The said direction was specific and cannot

be assumed more than this. Subsequently, on 10.12.2025, after hearing the Page 10 of 13 Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 423 of 2026

parties, the Adjudicating Authority passed a separate direction governing filing

of written submissions. The said subsequent direction merely required filing of

written submissions within the specified page limit and did not require in any

manner that such written submissions be filed by way of affidavit. Even assuming

that both orders are read conjointly, no interpretation of the said orders would

justify the conclusion that written submissions were required to be supported by

an affidavit.

21. It has been pleaded that there exists no finding of wilful falsehood,

suppression or professional misconduct attributable to the Appellant in any

manner in the Impugned Order. We further take into consideration that the written

submissions filed by the Appellant before the Adjudicating Authority bore the

signature and stamp of the Appellant on every page, thereby clearly

demonstrating authorization of the contents thereof. There seems neither

concealment nor any attempt to mislead the Adjudicating Authority. In the

absence of any finding regarding deliberate wrongdoing or intentional conduct,

the conclusion that "wrong submissions" were made is unsupported by the record

and cannot be sustained.

22. We also find that apart from imposing costs of Rs. 1 Lakh upon the

Appellant, the Adjudicating Authority also directed to forward a copy of the

Impugned order to IBBI. No issue concerning professional misconduct,

disciplinary violation or regulatory breach have been have been discussed or

commented upon by the Adjudicating Authority nor does the impugned order

Page 11 of 13 Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 423 of 2026

contain any adjudication on these issues. In the absence of any finding of

professional misconduct or regulatory infraction, the direction to forward the

order to IBBI are not justifiable.

23. It is noted that we had given the opportunity to the Respondent to file

written submissions on their behalf. Following is the written submission: -

Thus, the Respondent does not have any grievances.

24. It seems that the impugned order is not in accordance with the record and

proceeds upon an assumption that written submissions were directed to be filed

by way of affidavit. The order dated 10.12.2025, passed after hearing arguments

of all parties only directed both sides to file written submissions not exceeding

Page 12 of 13 Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 423 of 2026

two to three pages, within one week. The said order did not contain any stipulation

requiring written submissions to be supported by an affidavit.

25. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the impugned order

cannot be sustained and need to set aside to the extent it imposes Rs. 1 Lakh cost

upon the Appellant, and also expunge the adverse observations concerning

"wrong submissions" by the Adjudicating Authority in the Impugned Order. We

also set aside the direction forwarding the matter to IBBI.

26. No order as to cost. IA, if any are closed.

[Justice Mohammad Faiz Alam Khan] Member (Judicial)

[Naresh Salecha] Member (Technical) Sim

Page 13 of 13