Mrs. Renuka Devi Rangaswamy vs Prudent Arc Limited

(Hybrid Mode)

In the proceedings of C.P.(IB)/1099(CHE)2019, an application was preferred by the Appellant, being IA (I.B.C.) /131 (CHE) 2026, which is the subject matter of Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No.109/2026.

IA (I.B.C.) /132 (CHE) 2026, was preferred by the Appellant in C.P. (IB) / 1424 (CHE) 2019, which is the subject matter of consideration in Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No.113/2026.

The entire controversy circles around on a very narrow canvas. In the proceedings of the said two company petitions, the CIRP process has already been directed to be consolidated. During this said process, the Appellant had filed the above application, wherein the Appellant has sought for the following relief: -

"The Applicant therefore prays that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased a. To exclude Judicial Intervention in CIRP timeline of the Corporate Debtor Regen Powertech Private Limited from 09.12.2019 to 31.12.2025 and correspondingly, extend the 150 days of the CIRP of the Corporate Debtor from 01.01.2026 to 31.05.2026. b. To permit the Applicant to re-run the CIRP of the Corporate Debtor Regen Powertech Private Limited as resolved by the 6th Consolidated CoC of both RPPL and RISPL in their Meeting dated 15.12.2025. c. To pass such further or other orders as deemed fit and necessary by the Hon'ble Adjudicating Authority and thus render justice."

This relief happens to be akin to the relief sought in IA (I.B.C.) /132 (CHE) 2026, hence, it has been not repeated for the purposes of brevity.

When these IAs came for consideration before the Ld. Tribunal, the Ld. Tribunal proceeded to grant the relief (a) by extending the CIRP period for an additional 150 days commencing from 01.01.2026 to 31.05.2026.

We make it very clear that at this juncture itself, that the newly impleaded Respondents have not challenged the order granting the extension of time granted by the Ld. NCLT as prayed for in Relief (a) in the respective IAs. The Applicant to these IA is before this Appellate Tribunal, as against the denial to grant Relief (b), as prayed for in the respective IAs.

If we consider the observation that has been made by the Ld. Tribunal in the impugned order, the Ld. Tribunal has simply observed that Relief (b) cannot be adjudicated because the matter is pending before the Ld. NCLAT.

The Ld. Counsels, Mr. TK. Bhaskar, as well as Mr. E. Om Prakash, submit that, as far as the pending matter before NCLAT is concerned, as referred in the impugned order, the matter relates to the questions of the consolidation of COC as a consequence of consolidation of CIRP. So far as, the aspect of consolidation of CIRP is concerned, that has been laid to rest, by the decision taken by this Appellate Tribunal earlier, which had been affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court.

The reason for denial to consider the Relief (b) as prayed in the application, by the Ld. Tribunal is not disclosed in the order as to how and in what manner the pendency of the appeal before NCLAT, would have any effect on the grant of Relief (b). Hence, we are unable to read the conception, which the Ld. Tribunal might be relying upon while denying to grant Relief (b). In that eventuality, we dispose of these company appeals, requesting the Ld. Tribunal to consider the Relief (b), and to pass an order on merits even if it is to be denied on the ground of pendency of the appeal.

It is hoped and trusted that, owing to the fact that there is an extension of time already granted by the Ld. Tribunal, while granting the Relief (a), Ld. Tribunal will pass an appropriate order within a period of two weeks from today.

We have already observed, that the newly impleaded Respondents No. 2 & 4 have sought time to file a counter to the company appeal. We are of the view that, the controversy, which is involved herein, is not leading to an adjudication of an issue on merits or affecting any right of the parties on merits, and that it is only with regard to the decision-making process of the Ld. Adjudicating Authority of denying the Relief (b) on the ground of pendency of the appeal before NCLAT, which requires disclosure of mind and reason by the Ld. Tribunal. Only for that limited purpose, the matter is referred back to the Ld. Tribunal to pass an appropriate order as directed above.