Vinod Anand vs M/S Golden Rolls Pvt. Ltd

Vinod Anand ...Appellant(s)

Versus

Golden Rolls Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondent(s) Present: For Appellant : Ms. Suruchi Aggarwal, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Gurmeet Singh, Adv.

For Respondents : Mr. P.V Kapur, Sr. Adv. Sidhant Kapur, Kaveri Kapur, Saurabh Kalia, Laxmi, Adv.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode) 19.12.2025: Heard Ld. Counsel for the Appellant and Respondent.

2. This appeal has been filed against the order dated 09.10.2025 by which

order Section 7 application filed by the Appellant has been rejected relying on

an order passed in petition under Section 241 and 242 of the Companies Act,

2013 which was filed by the Appellant. The order impugned dated 09.10.2025

is as follows:-

"1. This Application has been filed by Mr. Vinod Anand, the Applicant/Financial Creditor before this Adjudicating Authority under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ("IBC" or "Code") read with Rule 4 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016, ("Adjudicating Authority Rules"), for initiating the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process ("CIRP"), against Golden Rolls Private Limited, the Respondent/Corporate Debtor. The amount of Rs. 2,28,87,885/ was extended as loan by the Financial Creditor being one of the Promoters of the Company over a period of time @9% compounded annually.

2. We have taken a view in CP-109(ND)/2023 filed by Mr. Vinod Anand & Anr. under Section 241 read with Section 242 of the Companies Act, 2013 that no substantiated act of oppression or mismanagement attributable to Respondents No. 2, Mr. Utsav Bhasin, Director of Golden Rolls Private Limited and No. 3, Mr. Narender Kumar Bhasin, Director of Golden Rolls Private Limited made out. Consequently, CP-109(ND)/2023 has been dismissed. Therefore, the prayers in IB-125(ND)/2024, do not survive. Accordingly, IB-125(ND)/2024 stands dismissed."

3. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant submits that the adjudicating authority

did not hear the section 7 application and merely relying on the order rejecting

petition under Section 241 and 242 of the Act section 7 application has been

rejected.

4. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent submits that there was several Section

241 and 242 proceedings and section 7 was only one of the series of the

litigation between the parties.

5. We have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. The order impugned dated 09.10.2025 does not indicate that Section 7

application has been adverted to by the Adjudicating Authority and merely

relying on an order passed in petition under Section 241 and 242 of the Act,

the application has been rejected.

7. We are of the view that the adjudicating authority ought to have looked

into the Section 7 application pleadings and thereafter could have taken a

decision in accordance with law after considering all aspects of the matter.

8. We are of the view that the order dated 09.10.2025 is not sustainable

and the same is set aside. CP (IB) No. 125 of 2024 is revived before the

Adjudicating Authority to be heard afresh in accordance with law. The appeal

is disposed of accordingly.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) Sheetal/Manu