AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
21.04.2025: These two appeals have been filed against an order dated 09.04.2025 passed by the adjudicating authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata Bench) in I.A. No. 453, 504 & 545/2025 in C.P. (IB) No. 91/2023. Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 606/2025 has been filed by the Resolution Professional (RP), whereas, Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) Nos. 599 – 601/2025 have been filed by the Committee of Creditors (CoC). Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appeal filed by the RP be confined to the order passed in I.A. No. 453/2025. CoC aggrieved by all the three orders dated 09.04.2025 passed in all the three applications have come up in these appeals.
The present is a case where Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the corporate debtor has commenced on 03.05.2024 and in the CIRP challenge process has already proceeded for 62 rounds where one of the resolution applicants was M/s. Amit Metaliks Ltd.
During the process when 62 rounds were already completed, I.A. No. 453/2025 was filed by Amit Metaliks seeking amendment in the information memorandum and several other prayers and stay of the challenge process till the land survey is contended. The principal pleadings in the application was that company has more land as to the one which is shown in the information memorandum and the RP has not correctly recorded the details of entire land in the information memorandum and the plant and machinery is located in the larger area.
I.A. No. 504/2025 was preferred by Jai Shree Steels Pvt. Ltd. an another resolution applicant praying for stay of the CIRP on the ground that description of the property of the corporate debtor is incorrect.
I.A. No. 545/2025 was filed by the RP seeking extension for further period of 60 days. Adjudicating authority by the impugned order has allowed I.A. No. 545/2025 which order is not under challenge in these appeals. The limited challenge in the appeal is with regard to directions issued in paragraph 44 of the impugned order which is as follows:
“44.Regarding replacement of the RP, an interlocutory application being I.A. (IB) No. 524/KB/2025 has been preferred already. Having noted the conduct of the present RP- Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Jalan, we direct his replacement in one week. In the event, the CoC is not able to replace the RP, we would appoint an RP in place of the present one. For the purpose, we direct the I.A. (IB) No. 524/KB/2025 to be listed on 22nd April 2025.”
Another application which need to be noticed is I.A. No. 524/KB/2025 which was filed by Amit Metaliks praying for replacement of the RP which application has been directed to be listed on 22.04.2025.
After the order dated 09.04.2025, the CoC has held its meeting on 11.04.2025 and with regard to change of the RP, CoC has taken a decision to not replace the RP and file an appeal against the order by which CoC was directed to replace the RP.
The adjudicating authority by impugned order has also directed for land survey which directions has been contained in paragraph 40 in I.A. No. 453/2025, which directions are as follows:
“40.For the purpose, a land survey may be conducted at the earliest to ascertain the correct extant of land, factory premises, location of the plant and machinery available for the CIR Process with proper demarcation of leasehold and freehold land and that of third parties over which the plant or factory of the corporate debtor is located.”
We have also heard learned Sr. counsel Mr. Reddy appearing for the Amit Metaliks.
We have considered the submissions of counsel for the parties and perused the records.
From the facts which has been brought on the record in the appeal, it is clear that CIRP process against the corporate debtor has not yet been completed and challenge process which has been commenced but has been stayed by the NCLT, in view of the application 453/2025 filed by the Amit Metaliks and the land survey has been already directed.
We have noted in I.A. 524/KB/2025 filed by Amit Metaliks directing for replacement of RP, which application is pending and has been directed to be listed on 22.04.2025. The grievance of learned counsel appearing for the RP is that to the averments made in the application RP has already filed a reply to the I.A. 524/2025 and placed its case to the effect that information provided in the information memorandum were as per the records of the corporate debtor and that issue has yet to be considered in the application which is posted on 22.04.2025.
We have also noticed that adjudicating authority itself has directed for land survey in paragraph 40 as noted above. Affidavit was also filed by the suspended director which has been noticed in the order of the adjudicating authority.
We thus are of the view that in view of the facts of the case, adjudicating authority has rightly directed for land survey and in effect no grievance has been raised to the land survey by the RP or the CoC in the present case.
In view of the facts of the case, we are of the view that ends of justice be served by directing the adjudicating authority to consider replacement of the RP in I.A. No. 524/KB/2025 after the land survey is completed. We thus are of the view that direction of the adjudicating authority in paragraph 44 to replace the RP cannot be sustained at this stage as well as the observations made in the impugned order against the RP.
We make it clear that challenge process being held up, in view of the aforesaid facts, the said challenge process may be resumed as soon as the survey report comes and decision is taken on I.A. 524/KB/2025. We clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on any of the issue raised in the appeal and it is for the adjudicating authority to take a decision in accordance with law.
Both the appeals are disposed of accordingly.