AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ashok Bhushan, J.
This Appeal by Suspended Director of the Corporate Debtor (“CD”) – Tuljabhavani Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. has been filed challenging the order dated 13.02.2026 passed by National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, Court-III in I.A. No.4604 of 2025 in I.A. No.4174 of 2025 in I.A. No.3068 of 2024 in I.A. No. 1719 of 2021. By the impugned order dated 13.02.2026, the Adjudicating Authority dismissed IA No.4604 of 2025 by imposing cost of Rs.25,000/- on the Appellant to be paid to the Prime Minister National Relief Fund.
Brief background facts giving rise to this Appeal needs to be noted, which are:
The Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP”) against the CD commenced vide order dated 24.02.2020. Respondent – Gaurav Ashok Adukia was appointed as Interim Resolution Professional (“IRP”). The Appellant being Ex-Director of the CD challenged the admission order by way of Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.376 of 2020, which Appeal was dismissed on 23.07.2020. The IRP constituted the Committee of Creditors (“CoC”) on 29.07.2020 with ICICI Bank as a sole CoC Member. The claim of ICICI Bank of Rs.10.75 crores was admitted. The IRP was appointed as Resolution Professional (“RP”). Form-G was issued inviting Expression of Interest (“EoI”), which was published on 24.09.2020, which was latter modified. The RP received three Resolution Plans, which were evaluated by the CoC. Voting on Plans commenced 07.07.2021 and concluded on 15.07.2021. The Resolution Plan submitted by M/s Kamini Metalliks Pvt. Ltd. was approved with 100% vote share. The RP filed IA No.1719 of 2021 on 29.07.2021 seeking approval of the Resolution Plan. The Adjudicating Authority vide order dated 12.09.2022 approved the Resolution Plan. The Resolution Plan was implemented.
After implementation of the Resolution Plan, the Appellant filed IA No.3068 of 2024 on 08.05.2024 seeking to set aside the approval of Resolution Plan by the CoC. When the pleadings were complete in IA No.3068 of 2024 and NCLT proceeded to hear the parties, the Appellant filed another application being IA No.4174 of 2025. The RP filed his reply affidavit to IA No.4174 of 2025 on 24.09.2025. The Appellant further filed an IA No.4604 of 2025 seeking initiation of perjury proceedings against the Respondent alleging that false and misleading statements have been made in reply affidavit dated 24.09.2025 in IA No.4174 of 2025. The application – IA No.4064 of 2025 was heard by the Adjudicating Authority. After hearing the application, the Adjudicating Authority by the impugned order has rejected the application holding the application as frivolous and imposing cost on the Appellant. While dismissing the application, the Adjudicating Authority in Paragraph-48 directed as follows:
“48.For all the reasons discussed above, we hold the present application to be frivolous and accordingly, the IA/4604/2025 is dismissed with cost of Rs. 25,000/-(Rupees Twenty-five Thousand Only) to be paid to the Prime Minister National Relief Fund.”
Challenging the order passed by Adjudicating Authority dated 13.02.2026, this Appeal has been filed by the Appellant – the Suspended Director of the CD.
We have heard Shri Partho Sarkar, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant.
Learned Counsel for the Appellant in support of the Appeal has submitted that RP has committed perjury by making false statements in its reply affidavit dated 24.09.2025 to the IA No.4174 of 2025.
We first need to notice the prayers made by the Appellant in its IA No.4604 of 2025 in IA No.4174 of 2025 in IA No.3068 of 2025 and IA No.1719 of 2021. The prayers have been quoted in Paragraph-1 of the impugned order, which are as follows:
“1.The instant application has been filed by Mr. Dhananjay Gaikwad (Applicant), one of the ex-directors of M/s Tuljabhavani Cold Storage Private Limited (Corporate Debtor) under section 379 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [in short “BNSS”] alleging that the averments made by the RP in his reply affidavit dated 24.09.2025 to IA/4174/2025 are perjurious in nature. The prayers sought in the application are extracted below:
A. To direct the registry to issue notice to the captioned respondent, framing therein the charges, which the answering respondent is required to meet in exercise of the adjudicatory authority’s powers U/s 425 of the Companies Act.
B. To hold that through falsities/misleads/dishonesty the alleged perjurer tended to deflect the course of justice in due adjudication of IA 4174/2025, hence it is expedient in the interest of justice, to record a finding as per Sec 379 (1) (a) of BNSS r/w Sec 424 (4) of the Companies Act, that — i. The alleged perjurer made dishonest/false and misleading statements in his submission before this Tribunal with dishonest suppression and twisting and concealment of material facts to serve his ulterior purpose in covering his tracks of crime;
ii.The alleged perjurer, evasively, dishonestly, frivolously, and blandiy denied the issues/reasoned findings and the binding precedents, hence prima-facie are liable for being pursued under perjury/ contempt proceedings and that such an act itself is also an offence under section Sec 246 OF BNS [209 of IPC] against the alleged perjurer; as per the law laid down in H.S. Bedi Vs. National Highway Authority of India 2016 SCC OnLine Del 432;
iii.The act of the captioned respondent in filing false submissions in the court is also an offence under criminal contempt and in view of the authoritative law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in ABCD V/s Union of India, (2020) 2 SCC 52 AND Perry Kansagra, In re, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 858, the court is duty bound to initiate action of perjury & sec 2(c) of the contempt of courts act, 1971;
C. To hold that the respondent/ alleged perjurer is liable to be pursued U/s 379 of BNSS [Earlier Sec 340 of Cr PC] in respect of offences — UNDER SEC 227 OF BNS [EARLIER SEC 191 OF IPC}, SEC 229 OF BNS [EARLIER SEC 193 OF IPC], SEC 233 OF BNS [EARLIER SEC 196 OF IPC], SEC 236 OF BNS [EARLIER SEC 199 OF IPC], SEC 237 OF BNS [EARLIER SEC 200 OF IPC], SEC 246 OF BNS [EARLIER SEC 209 of IPC] in terms of the enabling provision U/s 424 (4) of the Companies Act and given the offence/s stated in the instant complaint, reference be sent for initiating appropriate complaint in terms of Sec 236 (2) of the Code to be pursued U/s 236 (3) of the Code &/or such other appropriate directions be passed in accordance with the known position of law.
D. To issue appropriate directions to hold and declare the captioned respondent liable of being pursued for punishment under Section 235A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, in imposition of fine upon him extending to the maximum statutory limit of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crores only). The imposition of the maximum penalty is necessitated by the respondent’s wilful misconduct, deliberate violation of the governing provisions of the Code, and his conscious attempt to subvert the CIRP framework. Such grave acts, being destructive of the sanctity of insolvency proceedings and corrosive of public confidence in the system, warrant the sternest punishment, both lo adequately penalise the present wrongdoer and to serve as a deterrent against recurrence of such abuse of process.
E. o impose exemplary/heavy cost on the accused — respondent in terms of the ruling of Dr. Sarvapalli Radhakrishnan vs Union India (2019) 14 SCC 761, supra, r/w the enabling provision U/Rule 149 of NCLT Rules.
F. Any other directions/ relief in terms of prayer clause A— E.
G. Any other reliefs/ directions given the facts and circumstances of the present case.”
We have already noticed the sequence of the events above. The Appellant is Suspended Director of the CD. The CIRP commenced on 24.02.2020. The Resolution Plan was approved on 16.07.2021 by 100% vote share of the CoC. IA No.1719 of 2021 was filed by the RP for approval of the Resolution Plan, which application was allowed by the Adjudicating Authority vide order dated 12.09.2022. The Adjudicating Authority in the impugned order has noticed that after implementation of the Plan, the Applicant has filed IA No.3068 of 2024 on 08.05.2024 seeking to set aside the approval of the Resolution Plan by the CoC and another application – IA No.4174 of 2025 was filed on 31.08.2025 seeking similar set of reliefs, to which a reply was filed by the RP on 24.09.2025. The above facts have been noticed by the Adjudicating Authority in Paragraphs 8 and 9 of the impugned order, which are as follows:
“8.After implementation of the Resolution Plan, the Applicant has filed IA/3068/2024 on 08.05.2024 seeking to set aside the approval of the Resolution Plan by the CoC. When the pleadings were complete in IA/3068 and the Tribunal proceeded to hear the parties, the Applicant filed another application bearing No. 4174/2025 on 31.08.2025 seeking similar set of reliefs. The RP filed his reply-in-affidavit to IA/4174/2025 on 24.09.2025.
9.The Applicant has filed the present application bearing no. 4604/2025 for initiating perjury proceeding against the Respondent alleging that false and misleading statements have been made in his reply affidavit dated 24.09.2025 to IA/4174/2025 (hereinafter referred to as “Reply Affidavit”).”
The Appellant – Suspended Director of the CD, although had filed an Appeal challenging the admission of Section 7 application, which Company Appeal was dismissed on 23.07.2020. It is not shown that Suspended Director has challenged the order passed by Adjudicating Authority on 12.09.2022 approving the Resolution Plan. When a Resolution Plan is approved by the Adjudicating Authority under Section 31 of the IBC, the said approved Resolution Plan binds every stakeholder. Section 31, sub-section (1) of the IBC provides as follows:
“31.Approval of resolution plan. - (1) If the Adjudicating Authority is satisfied that the resolution plan as approved by the committee of creditors under sub-section (4) of section 30 meets the requirements as referred to in sub-section (2) of section 30, it shall by order approve the resolution plan which shall be binding on the corporate debtor and its employees, members, creditors, including the Central Government, any State Government or any local authority to whom a debt in respect of the payment of dues arising under any law for the time being in force, such as authorities to whom statutory dues are owed, guarantors and other stakeholders involved in the resolution plan.
Provided that the Adjudicating Authority shall, before passing an order for approval of resolution plan under this sub-section, satisfy that the resolution plan has provisions for its effective implementation.”
The order of the Adjudicating Authority approving the Resolution Plan was never challenged by the Appellant and it was after more than one and a half years, Appellant filed IA No.3068 of 2024 seeking to set aside the approval of Resolution Plan by the CoC. The Appellant having not challenged the approval Resolution Plan passed by the Adjudicating Authority on 12.09.2022, filing an application to set aside the approval was nothing, but misguided endeavour of the Appellant to keep the litigation alive.
Another application being IA No.4174 of 2025 was filed by the Appellant praying for similar reliefs, in which RP filed its’ reply affidavit on 24.09.2025, which reply affidavit is basis for filing the perjury application by the Appellant. The Adjudicating Authority in the impugned order has considered the allegations made by the Appellant in the perjury application and has adverted to reply of the RP to IA No.4174 of 2025, in which reply perjury was alleged by the Appellant. Each paragraph of the reply of the RP has been noticed and considered by the Adjudicating Authority. The Adjudicating Authority has also adverted to what amounts to perjury. Various judgments relied by the Appellant have been noticed. Adverting to each paragraph of the reply of the RP – Paragraphs 9, 25 and 26, the Adjudicating Authority has come to the conclusion that contents of the reply are not perjurious. Other paragraphs where allegations were made in Paragraphs 28, 29, 31 and 32 of the reply have also been gone into by the Adjudicating Authority and finding returned that there is no perjury committed by the RP. In Paragraphs 42 and 43, following have been held:
“42.Thus, what is sine qua non for initiating perjury proceedings is prima facie satisfaction that there was deliberate falsehood on a matter of substance which is established with distinct evident and not merely based on suspicion and that it is expedient in the interest of justice to order for proceedings for perjury to punish the delinquent under exceptional circumstances.
43.In the facts and circumstances of the present case and after perusal of the reply-affidavit dated 24.09.2025 on its entirety, we are of the view that the statements made by the RP in his reply to IA/4174 are only to put forth his version of the case. We are unable to conclude that the statements made in the reply affidavit are made with malafide intent or deliberate attempt to mislead this Tribunal or to deceive this Tribunal to obtain any favourable order from this Tribunal.”
The Adjudicating Authority has also deprecated the conduct of the Appellant in filing multiple applications. In Paragraph-46, the Adjudicating Authority has made following observation:
“46.Before parting, it is apropos here to note the conduct of the applicant in filing multiple applications in an apparent effort to delay the proceedings. Firstly, the Applicant had filed IA/3068/2024 seeking rejection of the resolution plan, approved by the Tribunal on 12.09.2022. The arguments on behalf of the Applicant were heard at length and concluded on 07.08.2025 and in the subsequent dates, the arguments on behalf of the Respondents were being heard. However, in the meantime, the Applicant filed another IA/4174/2025 on 31.08.2025 seeking the similar set of reliefs as sought in IA/3068 with more elaborate and crystalized grounds. When the matter was listed on 25.09.2025, Ld. Counsel for the Applicant insisted on hearing. IA/4174/2025 first and upon his insistence, this Bench heard the arguments of Applicant in IA/4174/2025. This was also recorded in the daily order dated 25.09.2025:
"1.This Tribunal heard L.A.3068/2024 at length on various occasions on 19.06.2025, 07.08.2025 and 20.08.2025 and the same was listed today at 3:00 PM.
2.Ld. Counsel for the Applicant submits that the issues in IA 3068/2024 have been crystalized in LA. 4174/2025 and he insists that instead of L.A.3068/2024, Ι.Α. 4174/2025 may be first heard. Though the reply is not on record on DMS, at the repeated persistent by Ld. Counsel for the applicant, we proceed to hear IA 4174/2025.
3.Arguments of Ld. Counsel for the Applicant are concluded. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent to argue on the next occasion.
4.List this matter on 06.10.2025 at 3:00 PM."”
The reply which was alleged by the Appellant before the Adjudicating Authority by filing perjury application, was a reply given by the RP in reply to IA No.4174 of 2025, which application sought set aside of the approval of the Resolution Plan. The RP, who has conducted the CIRP has filed the reply to defend the action taken by the RP, leading to approval of the Resolution Plan. We fully agree with the observation of the Adjudicating Authority that statements made by the RP in its reply to IA 4174 of 2025 were only to put forth his version of the case.
Learned Counsel for the Appellant sought to contend that the fraud at any stage can be revealed, and the RP has committed fraud in conduct of the CIRP and manifestly disproportionate fee in the CIRP of the CD. As noted above, the approval of the Resolution Plan by the Adjudicating Authority was made on 12.09.2022, which was never challenged and became final. The application filed by Suspended Director to set aside the approval of Resolution Plan was clearly frivolous and the reply, which was filed by the RP to the application to defend the action taken by the RP, has rightly been found by the Adjudicating Authority, not containing any perjury. The application filed by the Appellant for alleging perjury by the RP, has rightly been rejected. The present was a case where the Adjudicating Authority also has imposed cost of Rs.25,000/- on the Appellant. In the facts of the present case, the Adjudicating Authority has rightly imposed the cost, which imposition of cost was necessary in view of the frivolous applications filed by the Appellant.
We do not find any error in the order of the Adjudicating Authority, rejecting IA No.4604 of 2025 filed by the Appellant. There is no merit in the Appeal. The Appeal is dismissed.