AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
(Hybrid Mode)
This appeal challenges the impugned order dated 09.12.2025, wherein the Appellant seeks deletion of four lines contained in paragraph 4 at page 27 of the said order.
The Appellant claims that these are the proceedings under Section 95, and that the Adjudicating Authority has come to a conclusion of admission under CIRP, which is bad in law.
It is brought to our notice by IDBI/ the Financial Creditor about certain subsequent developments in the present case. She draws attention to another order dated 12.01.2026, in which the Adjudicating Authority has changed the Resolution Professional (RP) and a new Resolution Professional (RP) has been appointed and has also directed the RP to file his report within ten days of his appointment under Section 99. This order is as extracted below:
“…It also appears that the RP appointed by this tribunal has declined to take up the work and the Registry was directed to keep the IBBI informed of the same. It is informed that the IBBI has been informed of the refusal by Ms Indira Suresh Vora, RP not taking up the assignment. In view of the same, to continue the process of personal insolvency, we appoint Mr. Chetan Patel, IBBI/IPA-002/IP-N00819/2019-2020/12561, email-ID: [email protected] as RP and direct the applicant financial credit to pay the fee of Rs.2,00,000/- immediately to the RP and confirm by affidavit that no fees has been paid to Ms Indira Suresh Vohra. The newly appointed RP is directed to file his report within 10 days of his appointment his report under Sec 99 of IBC 2016 by affidavit on the application filed by the petitioner financial creditor under Sec 95 of IBC 2016. Since none appears for both the financial creditor and the PG (proxy appears) we direct both to be present by next date of hearing...”
It is further brought to our notice by the Financial Creditor that the matter has been heard and was reserved for order on 28.02.2026 by the Adjudicating Authority. It is also brought to our notice that once the matter has been reserved, there can be no challenge to the Section 95 proceedings, as per the law settled in Dilip B. Jiwrajka Vs. Union of India. The relevant portion is extracted as below:
“….86. We summarise the conclusion of this judgment below:
86.1.No judicial adjudication is involved at the stages envisaged in Section 95 to Section 99 IBC;
86.2.The resolution professional appointed under Section 97 serves a facilitative role of collating all the facts relevant to the examination of the application for the commencement of the insolvency resolution process which has been preferred under Section 94 or Section 95. The report to be submitted to the adjudicatory authority is recommendatory in nature on whether to accept or reject the application;
86.3.The submission that a hearing should be conducted by the adjudicatory authority for the purpose of determining “jurisdictional facts” at the stage when it appoints a resolution professional under Section 97(5) IBC is rejected. No such adjudicatory function is contemplated at that stage. To read in such a requirement at that stage would be to rewrite the statute which is impermissible in the exercise of judicial review;
86.4.The resolution professional may exercise the powers vested under Section 99(4) IBC for the purpose of examining the application for insolvency resolution and to seek information on matters relevant to the application in order to facilitate the submission of the report recommending the acceptance or rejection of the application;
86.5.There is no violation of natural justice under Section 95 to Section 100 IBC as the debtor is not deprived of an opportunity to participate in the process of the examination of the application by the resolution professional;
86.6.No judicial determination takes place until the adjudicating authority decides under Section 100 whether to accept or reject the application. The report of the resolution professional is only recommendatory in nature and hence does not bind the adjudicatory authority when it exercises its jurisdiction under Section 100;
86.7.The adjudicatory authority must observe the principles of natural justice when it exercises jurisdiction under Section 100 for the purpose of determining whether to accept or reject the application;…”
In the Company Petition under Section 95, also there are no grounds which have been mentioned with respect to Section 95 proceedings. It is also noticed that in the written submissions filed by the respondent before NCLT, no such grounds were mentioned. This fact has been brought to our notice during the proceedings before us.
In the light of the submissions made by both sides, we deem it appropriate to delete the following lines from the impugned order:
“The RP is directed to take charge of the Corporate Debtor's management immediately. The RP is also directed to cause public announcement as prescribed under Section 15 of the IBC, 2016 within three days from the date the copy of this order is received, and call for submissions of claim by the creditors in the manner as prescribed under Regulation 6 of the 1881 (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016.”
With these directions in place, Section 95 proceedings may go on as per law. The appeals are accordingly disposed of and Section 95 proceedings shall continue.