AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
[Per : Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Oral)]
29.07.2025 This appeal is filed by the Suspended Director of the Corporate Debtor against the order dated 21.06.2024 passed by National Company Law Tribunal Mumbai Bench, Court-V by which I.A. No. 4581/2023 filed by the Appellant with the prayer that “ Direct the Respondent to allow the Applicant and any authorized person on behalf of the Applicant to inspect the Claim Forms filed by the Creditors of the Corporate Debtor” has been dismissed.
Notice in this appeal was issued on 05.09.2024 with a following order:-
“Counsel for the Appellant submits that the Adjudicating Authority committed an error in rejecting the Application filed by the Appellant asking for inspection of the Claims submitted by the Financial Creditor and the copy of the said Claim. It is submitted that Appellant being the Promoter of the Corporate Debtor had locus to ask for the Claim Form which Application has been rejected.
2.Submission needs scrutiny.
3.Issue Notice.
4.Let Reply be filed within two weeks. List this Appeal on 17th October, 2024. Pendency of this Appeal shall not preclude the Adjudicating Authority to proceed and decide the Application pending before the Adjudicating Authority without reference to the Order impugned in the present case.”
Thereafter, this court had passed another order dated 13.02.2025 which is also reproduced as under :-
“Counsel for the appellant has submitted that a loan of Rs.85.35 crores was taken by RNA Corp from two entities, namely, Reliance Home Finance Ltd. (RHFL) and Reliance Commercial Finance Ltd. (RCFL). A.A. Estates was also co-borrower with RNA Corp. The appellant, namely, Gokul Anilkumar Aggarwal had also given his personal guarantee towards the repayment.
2.The debt of RHFL & RCFL was taken over by Suraksha Assets Construction Ltd. (Suraksha) somewhere in 2018. RNA Corp was put into CIRP on 26.11.2019 and Suraksha filed a claim of Rs. 1,66,00,03,468/-. The RP admit the claim of Rs. 165,20,65,912/-. The co-borrower/ Corporate Guarantor, namely, A.A. Estates was also pushed into CIRP on 06.12.2022. Suraksha submitted the claim of Rs.394,93,36,966/- in the CIRP of A.A. Estates whereas the principle amount remains the same i.e. Rs.85.35 crores. The present appellant, who is the Director and Personal Guarantor of the Suspended Director and Personal Guarantor of A.A. Estates, also requested the RP for inspection of the claim documents because according to him the amount of Rs. 85.35 crores lent in the year 2014-2016 cannot become Rs.1,66,00,03,468/- and then within 2-3 years Rs.394,93,36,966/-. This request was turn down by the RP, therefore the appellant filed I.A. No. 4581/2023 and made the same prayer to the Adjudicating Authority to allow inspection of the claim or to direct the RP to provide the copy of the claim form. However, the said application was dismissed and then the present appeal has been filed. Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant, being the member of the Suspended Board of Director, has a right to participate in the meeting of the CoC in terms of Section 24 (3) of the IBC, 2016 and has also relied upon a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Kumar Jain Vs. Standard Chartered Bank & Ors. [(2019) 20 SCC 455]. We have penitently asked the counsel, appearing on behalf of the RP, as to how the claim of Rs.394,93,36,966/- has been admitted in the short span of time on 25.08.2023 when the last claim was submitted by the same claimant (Suraksha) in the year 2020 was Rs. 1,66,00,03,468/-.
3.Mr. Siddhant Asthana, Advocate appearing on behalf of the RP has submitted that he would seek instructions from the RP as today there is no information available with him. On his request adjourned to 10.03.2025.
4.Mr. Siddhant Asthana, Counsel for the RP shall appear along with the RP on the next date of hearing in the court.”
Counsel for the Appellant has relied upon a decision of this court rendered in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 310 of 2024 titled as Moneywise Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. Mr. Arunava Sikdar, Resolution Professional decided on 30.07.2025 and pressed para 60, 61 & 62 of the said judgement.
On the other hand, Ms. Honey Satpal appearing on behalf of RP has submitted that this appeal has in fact become infructuous because she has already given copy of the claim form as desired by the Appellant in the application bearing IA No. 4581/2023, which has been filed in this court as with the additional affidavit dated 19.05.2025 as Annexure A2(Colly). Mr. Sandeep Bajaj appearing on behalf of the Appellant has not denied this fact that the required document has already been received during the these proceedings.
Be that as it may, in view of the fact that the Appellant has already got a copy of the claim form, filed by the creditors of the Corporate Debtor, from the RP, therefore, the present appeal has become infructuous and is thus, dismissed as infructuous.
No Costs. I.A., if any, are closed.
At this stage, Mr. Bajaj has submitted that another application bearing I.A. No. 2332/ 2024 is pending before the Learned Tribunal in which the issue regarding admission of claim is sub judice, therefore, he may be allowed to raise those issues.
In this regard, we may observe that we have not passed any order in this regard in the present appeal, therefore, the appellant is free to raise this issue in the pending application before the Tribunal in accordance with law.