Sunil Kumar Bansal vs Jalesh Kumar Grover And Ors & Ors

IN THE MATTER OF: Sunil Kumar Bansal ...Appellant Versus Jalesh Kumar Grover & Ors. ...Respondents

Present: For Appellant : Mr. Aalok Jagga, Mr. Aayush Puri, Ms. Urvija Sharma, Mr. Ajay Singh Madan and Mr. Nipun Gautam, Advocates.

For Respondents : Mr. Abhishek Anand, Mr. Karan Kohli and Ms. Palak Kalra, Advocates for RP.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

20.02.2026 : I.A. No. 7330/2025

1. This is an application praying for condonation of 9 days delay in filing

of the appeal.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the delay was caused

due to the office of the counsel for the appellant being shifted and there was

voluminous documents.

3. A reply has been filed opposing the condonation of delay.

4. We have considered the submissions of the counsel for the parties and

perused the records.

5. We find sufficient cause shown for 9 days delay in filing of the appeal,

which is within the condonable period.

Delay condoned.

I.A. No. 7213/2025

1. This is an application praying for condonation of 49 days delay in

refiling of the appeal.

2. We find sufficient cause shown in paragraph 2 of the application for

condonation of refiling delay.

Refiling delay condoned.

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1882/2025

1. Heard counsel for the appellant.

2. Amended memo of parties is taken on record.

3. This appeal has been filed against an order dated 13.08.2025 passed

by the adjudicating authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Chandigarh

Bench, Court - I, Chandigarh) in I.A. No. 1417/2024 in C.P. (IB)

No.319/Chd/2019.

4. Appellant is the suspended director of the corporate debtor who filed

the application praying for various reliefs challenging the decision for

issuance of Form - G and for staying the further proceedings. The prayers

made in the application has been rejected by the adjudicating authority which

has been quoted in paragraph 2 of the impugned order, which is as follows:

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1882 of 2025 & I.A. No.7213 & 7330 of 2025 2 of 4 "a. to set aside the decision taken by Respondent No.2-

COC in its second COC meeting dated 04.04.2024, third COC meeting dated 30.04.2024, and fourth COC meeting dated 14.05.2024, Form-G and Request for Resolution Plans of the Corporate Debtor being contrary to the very object of IBC, 2016, in view of the fact that the sole asset of the CD i.e. Hotel situated at 29/7, Industrial Area, Phase-2, Chandigarh has already been resumed by Respondent No.3 vide order dated 05.09.2018 (ANNEXURE A-1), against which appeal is pending for 01.08.2024 before the Adviser to Administrator, U.T. Chandigarh filed by the CD and hence is subjudice.

b. During the pendency of the present application, further proceedings before Respondent No.1-2, pursuant to CIRP of CD, may be stayed as in absence of the sole asset of CD, there cannot be any maximization of the value of assets of CD by unconditional resolution plan till appeal pending before Adviser is allowed and the Hotel site is restored from the ownership of Respondent No.3 to the CD."

5. The adjudicating authority by the impugned order has rejected the

application holding that appellant who was suspended director has no right

to agitate the issues.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that corporate debtor has

a leasehold property which was resumed and revision was filed challenging

the said resumption order and the matter was taken to the High Court,

revision was subsequently allowed. He submits that till the litigation comes

to an end, the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) ought to have

been not proceeded, since that is the only valuable land of the corporate

debtor.

7. We have considered the submissions of the counsel for the appellant

and perused the records.

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1882 of 2025 & I.A. No.7213 & 7330 of 2025 3 of 4

8. Admittedly, the leasehold property was in the name of the corporate

debtor. The fact that land was resume and litigations are pending cannot be

a ground to stay the CIRP process which has to be completed in timeline.

Resolution Professional (RP) who is already in the place has to take steps for

protection of the assets of the corporate debtor and we are of the view that the

adjudicating authority did not commit any error in rejecting the application

file by the appellant praying for the prayers as noted above.

We do not find any error in the order of the adjudicating authority.

Appeal is dismissed.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Indevar Pandey] Member (Technical) himanshu/md

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1882 of 2025 & I.A. No.7213 & 7330 of 2025 4 of 4