Jitendra Singh vs Sunil Kumar

20.02.2025: These two appeals have been filed by the Personal Guarantors challenging the order dated 04.02.2025 passed by the NCLT, Jaipur Bench. Facts and sequence of events in both the appeals being same, it is sufficient to refer to facts in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.317 of 2025 for deciding both the appeals.

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.317 of 2025 is filed against order dated 04.02.2025 by which order the Adjudicating Authority has accepted the report submitted under Section 112 by the Resolution Professional and taking the same on record, rejected the IA No.20/JPR/2025 filed by the Appellant as infructuous.

In the present case, the Appellant was required to submit a repayment plan which he submitted before the Resolution Professional and the said plan was placed before the CoC. Secured Financial Creditor has sent an email to the Appellant on 16.12.2024 communicating that repayment plan submitted is not acceptable and the Appellant – Personal Guarantor was advised to revise the proposal substantially keeping the value of the security. Subsequent to said email, the Appellant claim that revised proposal was submitted and an application was filed seeking extension of time for submitting repayment plan which application has been dismissed as infructuous by the Adjudicating Authority by the impugned order and report submitted by the Resolution Professional has been accepted under Section 112.

Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that in the present case, the Adjudicating Authority ought to have first considered the application filed by the Appellant for extension of time for submitting revised repayment plan but the Adjudicating Authority has first accepted the report filed by the Resolution Professional and thereafter dismissed the applications as infructuous.

Learned counsel for the Resolution Professional submits that there is no objection if a limited time is given to the Appellant to submit the revised repayment plan, which may be placed before the CoC for consideration and thereafter appropriate steps may be taken.

We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

From the order impugned, it is clear that application which was filed by the Appellant for extension of time for submission of revised repayment plan has been dismissed as infructuous after accepting the report of Resolution Professional filed under Section 112. We are of the view that the Adjudicating Authority ought to have first considered the application for extension of time which was filed by the Personal Guarantor for submitting revised repayment plan. Without considering the said application, the Adjudicating Authority has first accepted the report filed by the Resolution Professional under Section 112 and then rejected application as infructuous.

We have already noticed the submission of the Resolution Professional that there can be no objection in giving some limited time to the Appellant to submit revised repayment plan, which may be placed before the CoC and thereafter, report may be submitted before the Adjudicating Authority.

Considering the aforesaid, we are of the view that ends of justice be served in setting aside order dated 04.02.2025 and granting two weeks’ time to the Appellant to submit revised repayment plan. After receipt of the repayment plan, the Resolution Professional shall take appropriate steps and place the same before the CoC and shall complete the process in further 60 days and submit a fresh report before the Adjudicating Authority for passing appropriate orders. With these directions, we dispose of both the appeals. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and it is for the Adjudicating Authority to take appropriate decision in accordance with law.