Anuj Goyal vs Resolution Professional & Anr.

(Hybrid Mode)

Heard learned counsel as well as Shri Abhishek Anand, learned counsel appearing for the Resolution Professional – Respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 in this Appeal is the Authorised Representative of class of creditors. In view of the order which we propose to pass in this appeal no notice need to issue to Respondent No.2 with liberty to Respondent No.2 to appear and make submission before the Adjudicating Authority.

This appeal has been filed by the Appellant challenging the order dated 26.02.2026 passed in IA (IBC) No. 241/2026 filed by the Appellant. Appellant is a Financial Creditor in a class of the Corporate Debtor – Chandigarh Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Application was filed seeking direction to permit inspection to the Applicant or Authorised Representative of the Applicant to claim forms and supporting documents in respect of claims admitted in the CIRP of the Cont’d…/ Corporate Debtor, in which application, the Adjudicating Authority directed the Respondent No.1 to place the issue before the CoC for consideration and disposed of the application. Aggrieved by which order this appeal has been filed.

Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the Resolution Professional who initially admitted the claims and constituted CoC has been removed and thereafter one more Resolution Professional came who also could not continue and now Respondent No.1 is new Resolution Professional who is carrying out the CIRP. Appellant’s case is that several claims of homebuyers who are creditors of the Corporate Debtor are inflated and incorrectly admitted. It is submitted that the Appellant has already filed two applications being I.A. No.1442 of 2025 and I.A. No.1718 of 2025 praying for various directions including exclusion of certain Financial Creditors in class from CoC which applications are still pending for consideration. It is submitted that the Resolution Plan has been approved by the CoC as existing, which is pending consideration before the Adjudicating Authority. Appellant’s case is that Appellant prayed for inspection of claim form but the Adjudicating Authority by the impugned order has directed the issue to be placed before the CoC whose constitution has been questioned by the Appellant in the application.

Learned counsel for the Resolution Professional submits that the Resolution Professional cannot permit any inspection or supply of information to a homebuyer – creditor in a class unless it is permitted by the CoC or the Adjudicating Authority.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The prayers made in the application IA (IBC) No. 241/2026 are too wide to be accepted and the Adjudicating Authority did not commit any error in not accepting the prayers as made in the application, however, we are of the view that the Appellant having already filed I.A. No.1442 of 2025 and I.A. No.1718 of 2025, which are pending consideration before the Adjudicating Authority, the said IAs need to be considered by the Adjudicating Authority before proceeding to approve the resolution plan.

The Resolution Professional submits that they have already filed reply to the said IAs. In view of the aforesaid, we are of the view on the next date of hearing fixed in the matter liberty is given to the Appellant to bring into notice of the Adjudicating Authority order of this Tribunal and request for consideration and disposal of I.A. No.1442 of 2025 and I.A. No.1718 of 2025 before plan approval application is decided. With these observations, we dispose of this appeal.