AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
ORDER
These are set of two company appeals which has been preferred by the Appellant in-person, in the capacity of being a Suspended Director of M/s. Priyaranjani Fibres Limited.
The Appellant in Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 32/2026, questions the impugned order that has been rendered by the Ld. Tribunal on 28.11.2025, in IA(IBC)/393/2024, being the application preferred by the Appellant under Section 60 (5) (c) of the I & B Code, 2016, to be read with Rule 11 and Rule 34 of the NCLT Rules and Section 65 of the I & B Code, 2016. By virtue of the aforesaid impugned order, the application thus preferred by the Appellant has been rejected.
In the corresponding connected Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 34/2026, the Appellant challenges the impugned order dated 28.11.2025, passed in IA(IBC)/(PLAN)/1/2024, as preferred in CP (IB) No. 574/7/HDB/2019, in which the Resolution Plan in respect of the Corporate Debtor, M/s. Priyaranjani Fibres Limited was approved.
Heard Ld. Counsels for the parties at length.
In Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 32/2026, the Appellant challenges the order dated 28.11.2025, passed on the interlocutory application, IA(IBC)/393/2024, preferred by the Appellant. In the said Application, the Appellant had modulated the relief in the following manner: -
“Reliefs sought
i.To re-run the CIRP process by appointing another Resolution Professional by setting aside the Resolution Plan filed by Learned. Resolution Professional U/s.30(6) and 31 of IBC which Resolution Plan consists full of several irregularities committed by COC as per para-20 of present I.A. and the decision of the COC is wholly capricious, arbitrary, irrational and dehors the provisions of Code and Regulations and the proceedings conducted by Respondent-2 with collusive-fraud and malicious intent as defined U/s.65 of IBC.
ii.That directing Learned. Resolution Professional to provide copy of the Resolution Plan to Appellant Suspended Director D. Srinivasa Rao.”
In a nutshell, his prayer in the said Application was for a direction to set aside the Resolution Plan filed by the Resolution Professional under Section 30 & 31 of the I & B Code, 2016, for approval of Ld. NCLT, to appoint another Resolution Professional and to re-run the CIRP Process and to provide a copy of the said plan to the Appellant herein.
The nature of relief, which was sought by the Appellant in the said Application was a relief solicited at a stage much prior to the approval of the Resolution Plan by Ld. NCLT. Now that the Resolution Plan has been approved by Ld. NCLT and the said order is under challenge in the connected Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 34/2026, denial of the aforesaid reliefs which is the subject matter of Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 32/2026, in our opinion, is not required to be ventured into merits for the reason being that, all the issues involved in the Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 32/2026, qua the relief sought therein consisting of the prayer to set aside the Resolution Plan, to appoint a new Resolution Professional and to re-run the CIRP process, would still be a question which would be open to be argued by the Appellant in-person in the connected company appeal, Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 34/2026, where he has questioned the approval of Resolution Plan itself. A premature relief cannot be a reason to sustain an appeal, particularly when the approval to Resolution Plan has ultimately been accorded by the impugned order dated 28.11.2025, as passed in IA(IBC)/(PLAN)/1/2024, in the aforesaid Company Petition.
In view of the fact that, all the issues which are under consideration in the Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 34/2026, would still be left open for the Appellant to agitate the same, which were raised by him as a subject matter in the IA(IBC)/393/2024, we are of the opinion that the Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 32/2026 is not required to be ventured into by us at this stage because all the rights of the Appellant qua the issue raised by him in IA No.393/2024, is still a merged issue that would be left open to be agitated in the Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 34/2026, where he has put a challenge to the approval of the Resolution Plan. Hence, Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 32/2026 would stand ‘closed’.
Heard Ld. Counsels for the parties on the Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 34/2026, as well as, the supporting stay application, being IA No. 79/2026. The Respondents have already put an appearance. They may file their respective counter affidavit within a period of 3 weeks from today.
Till next date of listing, the implementation of the Resolution Plan as approved by the impugned order would be kept in abeyance.
Let the copy of this order be placed on records of both the Appeals.
List on 06.03.2026.