Sanjeev Mahajan vs Nimitaya Hotel & Resorts Ltd. & Ors.

“12.

Now we proceed to the merits. We find that this application is moved by the Suspended Board seeking adjournment. First prayer is to adjourn the hearing of the proceedings in CP (IB) No. 1913(ND)/2019. Second prayer is pending such adjournment to pass no final or prejudicial order in any interlocutory application which is participated by the RP. We are of the view that the Applicant is having no locus standi to ask for sweeping adjournment in pending matters. Secondly, there is no proof that any such undertaking has been given by the IBBI that disciplinary proceedings shall be disposed of within 2 weeks'. Thirdly the Applicant has filed no proof that any order concerning the matter before us has been passed in Writ Petition No. 9559 of 2026. Fourthly, the Applicant has not been able to show how the matter of plan approval which is pending since 2023 and other IAs, are impacted by mere filing of Writ Petition No. 9559 of 2026. We find the grounds taken before us are not genuine and are unsubstantiated. We are of the view that the motive behind moving this application is not bonafide and that the Applicant has no locus to seek adjournment. Therefore, the application is rejected for lack of locus standi as well as lack of merits. Therefore, this application is dismissed, subject to payment of cost of Rs 1,00,000 (Rupees one Lakh only), to be deposited in the Prime Minister’s Relief Fund, within ten days from date of uploading of this order.”

“7.

Before we proceed to examine the merits of the application, we find it appropriate to record certain observations which are as below:

(i)

The Company Petition filed under Section 7 against CD Nimitya Hotel & Resorts Ltd. was admitted into insolvency in December, 2021; Since the admission order a number of IAs have been and are being continuously filed by the Suspended Board on different grounds including application by the Suspended Board for transfer of case from one bench to the other. A glance on the litigations started since then on behalf of the Suspended Board gives an impression that the matter (before the concerned bench at that time) was challenged on every possible count by the Suspended Board; the Resolution Plan was approved by the CoC and a Plan Approval Application i.e., IA/987/2023 came to be filed; The plan approval application is pending since about last 3 years; From the history of the case this is clear that matter travelled to different forums at different stages and plan IA is pending since last about 3 years.

(ii)

The plan approval application and IAs were being heard by the Regular Bench, Court No. 5 but members recused themselves from hearing and therefore this matter has been transferred and assigned to this Special Bench by order dated 06.01.2026 and since then this matter is being heard by this Special Bench. Since the matter came before this Special Bench there have been two transfer application for transfer of this case from this Special Bench and both have been dismissed by the Principal Bench, NCLT.

(iii)

The history of the matter further shows that besides instant plan approval application, at the moment there are about 31 IAs pending before us; out of those 31 IAs, major share of the applications are filed on behalf of the Suspended Board including the instant application.

(iv)

The history further tell us that every time this matter comes before us, some new IA is filed not for genuine adjudication but for the purpose that precious times of the Court is lost in dealing with the new IA in supplementary list leaving limited time for other applications to be taken up.

(v)

A look at the statistics may be a useful indicator. More than 80 Interlocutory Application have been filed in the present matter up till now, out of which more than 50 have been disposed, rest are pending. Since the assignment of this matter to this Special Bench in January 2026, six hearing since then, 14 new IAs have been filed. 6 IAs have been filed by the Suspended Board alone since the matter came before this Special Bench. We add a word of caution that figures in this para may be plus/minus a few numbers and may not be exact but broadly correct.

(vi)

We make it clear that purpose of giving statistics is not to undermine right of any genuine litigant to take recourse to law for redressal of their grievances. Having said that, the experience attained while sitting as members on bench compels us to record a factually correct observation that filing of applications on flimsy and superfluous grounds is not a rare occurrence. Tactics is an open secret. Let the judicial proceedings be long, complicated and annoying process and take obvious advantages from such delaying tactics.

8.

Now coming to the merits of the application- the Applicant submits that IBBI has given a categorical undertaking that the disciplinary proceedings against the RP shall be disposed of within a period of two weeks'. We find no documentary proof of such undertaking being given. On this submission, we raised a query in this regard which was answered in a cryptic manner by the Ld. counsel for the Applicant, Mr. Deepak Khosla that even our orders are uploaded after delay, and therefore non-attaching of that order should not trouble us.

9.

The Ld. Counsel for the Applicant, Mr. Deepak Khosla, began referring to provisions of Section 27 IBC and many more therefore, we had to intervene requesting the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant to confine his submissions to the application only, however, he insisted that he should be heard in detail covering all the aspects of the matter including matter of appointment/removal of R.P. and his role.

10.

During the course of hearing, his attitude was overbearing and he kept on harping on extraneous matter and also commented that this Special Bench was regularly sitting at 02:30pm, for this matter on every hearing date and that he does not understand why this matter is being heard at 10:30am today. He further said that, he had to appear before the Principal Bench and that he has been hindered because this bench chose to sit at 10:30 am rather than in post lunch session. He also said that because of change in timings, he faced difficulties without elaborating much as to what were his difficulties.

11.

We, as responsible members on the Bench exercised utmost restraint in larger interest of the genuine litigants and the institution. We record his conduct for future reference, if need arises.”

“25.

In the above case, this Tribunal noted that Resolution Plan was approved but after noticing that it was observed that no direction can be issued but liberty was given to the Appellant to file an application under Section 12A and this Tribunal has observed that if application under Section 12A is filed COC may decide as to whether proposal given by the Appellant is better than the plan. In the above case, Hon'ble Supreme Court vide Order dated 14th June 2019 granted liberty to move an application before the Adjudicating Authority and consequently the Appellant has moved the Adjudicating Authority which had observed that CIRP can be closed only when an application under Section 12A is filed by settling the matter with approval of 90% voting share. When we come to the facts of the present case, proposal under Section 12A submitted by the Respondent No.1 was also directed by this Tribunal to be considered along with Resolution Plan as has been noticed above and CoC in its 14th CoC meeting has already considered the Resolution Plan along with settlement proposal submitted by Respondent No. 1. Thus the facts of the present case are entirely different where the Settlement proposal submitted by Respondent No.1 has already been considered by the CoC, the above Judgment does not help the Respondent No.1 in the present case.”