Ashok Tiwari vs DBS Bank India Ltd. (DBIL) & Ors.

(Hybrid Mode)

Heard Shri Arvind Nayyar Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Appellant, Shri Rachit Mittal Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent as well as Learned Counsel for the CoC.

Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the CoC of the CD has been constituted by the RP without taking into consideration the relevant facts and the same has been challenged by the Appellant by moving on I.A. bearing No. 4742 of 2024 before the Learned Adjudicating Authority and the said application is still pending for disposal.

It is further submitted that the CoC wrongly constituted by the RP has also taken a decision to replace RP Ms. Ritu Rastogi with Shri Mukesh Kumar Grover. It is vehemently submitted that since the very constitution of the CoC has been challenged by the Appellant by moving an I.A. before the Learned Adjudicating Authority the CoC should have waited for the decision of the Learned Adjudicating Authority on the said application and by taking decisions hurriedly, the intention of the wrongly constituted CoC appears to make the application pending before the Adjudicating Authority as infructuous. Therefore, a genuine cause of action has arisen to file the instant appeal.

It is submitted that in this appeal an interim order was passed on 21.07.2025, whereby though the newly appointed RP was permitted to proceed further however with the rider that at the stage of issuance of the form G he will have to take leave of this court (Appellate Tribunal) before proceeding further and the said interim order is still continue and though the appeal has been filed challenging the order of initiation of the CIRP but the grievance of the Appellant would be satisfied if the interim order dated 21.07.2025, passed in this appeal, is continued with the clarification that before proceedings further, beyond issuance form G, the leave of the Learned Adjudicating Authority would be taken before proceeding further and the appeal may be disposed of in these terms.

Learned Counsel for the Respondents, however, has not disputed the factual position with regard to the fact that an interim order was passed initially in this appeal on 28.05.2025, which was modified on 21.07.2025 in terms that the newly appointed RP was permitted to proceed further, however, it was stated in categorical terms that at the stage of issuances of form G he will have to take the leave of the court (this Appellate Tribunal).

We have heard Learned Counsel for the Parties and have perused the record. Having considered all the facts and circumstances of this case it appears to be an admitted situation that the Appellant has challenged the constitution of the CoC by moving an I.A. bearing No. 4742 of 2024 and the same is still pending before the Learned Adjudicating Authority for disposal. It is also admitted that an I.A. No. 4742 of 2024 was filed in CP(IB) No. 661 of 2021, which is still pending before the Learned Adjudicating Authority for disposal. The grievance of the Appellant appears to be that though the constitution of the CoC has been challenged by him, however, without waiting for any order of the Learned Adjudicating Authority a decision has been taken by the CoC to change the RP.

Having considered all the facts and circumstance of this case we are of the considered view that since an I.A. being 4742 of 2024, is still pending before the Learned Adjudicating Authority for disposal, wherein the constitution of the CoC has been challenged the grievance of the Appellant would be readdressed if this appeal is finally disposed of with the request to the Learned Adjudicating Authority to dispose of the I.A. No. 4742 of 2024, at the earliest and till than the interim order dated 21.07.2025 may be extended in terms that the newly appointed RP may proceed further, however, before issuance of form G he will have to take the leave of the Learned Adjudicating Authority.

In view of above we dispose of the instant appeal requesting the Learned Adjudicating Authority to dispose of the I.A. No. 4742 of 2024 filed by the Appellant if possible within three months from production of a certified copy of this order before it by any party.

Till the I.A. No. 4742 of 2024 is disposed of by the Learned Adjudicating Authority it is provided that the newly appointed RP Mr. Mukesh Kumar Grover may proceed further with the resolution process, however, at the stage of issuance of form G he will have to take leave of the Learned Adjudicating Authority.

Keeping in view the request made by Leaned Counsel for the RP which has not been objected by any party we exclude the period from 21.07.2025 till today, from calculation of the period of the CIRP.

Appeal is disposed of in above terms. There is no order as to costs. Pending IA if any is also closed.