Shriram Shekhar, Resolution Professional Of Inma International Limited vs G. Rathinavelu

(Hybrid Mode)

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Appellant as well as the Ld. Counsel for the Respondent No. 1.

This Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (INS) No. 170 / 2026, has been filed against the order dated 12.03.2026, was passed in IA (IBC) / 935 (CHE) / 2024 as preferred in CP(IB)/49(CHE)/2019:

Ld. Counsel for the Appellant submits that, the Ld. Adjudicating Authority by the impugned order, has directed as follows:

``Ld. Counsel Mr. S.R. Raghunathan for Ld. Counsel Mr. S.R. Raghunathan for the Respondent.

In this case we find that main grievance of the Applicant is access being not granted to them. We have passed an order on 18.10.2024 and thereafter 18.08.2025 thereby restoring the registered office of Corporate Debtor as well as providing access to the Applicant with reasonable restrictions. We find that RP has sought certain information about the persons occupying premises and the same is found to be obstructive. We have heard the case and we find that the premises is under the control of RP and the Applicant has access to the premises where the companies are functioning. The Applicant only sought removal of restrictions imposed by RP and sought full access to the building without disturbing the premises occupied by RP as Registered office of Corporate Debtor. Applicant also stated that he would be withdrawing the above Applications, if the above relief is granted. Applicant is permitted to withdraw the above Applications and RP is directed to ensure full access is provided to the Applicant with immediate effect.

Accordingly, IA’s (I.B.C.) / 366 / (CHE) / 2026 and IA (IBC) / 935 (CHE) / 2024 are disposed of as withdrawn.’’

Ld. Counsel for the Appellant submitted that, the Appellant is the Resolution Professional of the Corporate Debtor (M/s. INMA International Limited) and by Order dated 18.10.2024, the Ld. Adjudicating Authority has directed the Respondent No.1, the Suspended Director to handover the possession and the access of the Corporate Debtor. In compliance of this order dated 18.10.2024, the Appellant secured the possession and the access of the Registered Office of Corporate Debtor on 16.08.2025.

It is submitted that in IA (IBC) / 935 (CHE) / 2024, several prayers were made by the Suspended Director, in this Application, an Order also passed on 18.08.2025 as an oral mentioning.

Later, on 18.08.2025, various 3^rd parties claiming that they are sharing Office space in Registered Office of Corporate Debtor, represented before Ld. NCLT, to direct the Appellant to provide access to Registered Office of Corporate Debtor.

The Application, came up for hearing in which the Respondent No. 1 who was the Applicant, prayed that, he would be permitted to withdraw the application provided, if the Resolution Professional is directed to ensure full access.

The order dated 18.08.2025, which was passed in IA (IBC) / 935 (CHE) / 2024 has been extracted by the Respondent No. 1 in his application IA (IBC) / 366 (CHE) / 2026 in Paragraph 10 which is as follows:-

``In this case we find that Counsel for Africa India Business Centre Limited and Africa India Economic Foundation as well as Counsel for Tunnel Konnect India Private Limited and Trac Technologies India Limited stated that their business operations have been blocked and they are not in a position to access the business server located in the premises which has been taken possession by the RP. However, RP relied on submission by Shri G. Rathinavelu, Applicant in IA 935 of 2024 in para 15 stating as under:

``15. It is submitted that the Applicant had permitted multiple companies, namely : (i) Velbros International Security Academy Private Limited; (ii) Tunnel Konnect India Private Limited; (iii) TracTechnologies India Limited; iv) Africa India Business Centre Limited; (v) Africa India Economic Foundation; and (vi) GAI Techwide Private Limited to occupy different portions of the subject premises. It is submitted that as on date, all of the aforementioned companies have handed over vacant possession of the respective portions at the Subject premises and are no longer in possession of any portion of the Subject premises.’’

Therefore RP stated that those companies stated to be functioning there have already handed over vacant possession of premises to New India Cooperative Bank, lender of Suspended Director Mr. G. Rathinavelu. Further RP also stated that property originally belonged to Corporate Debtor and has been transferred without consideration from the Corporate Debtor to the Suspended Director and the same is subject matter of Section 66 Application pending before us. Also RP stated that matter of transfer of the said property was agitated before Hon’ble High Court of Madras. Considering the adjudication in respect of above matters and considering the submissions made by the parties, that their business interest is affected due to the action taken by RP by taking possession of premises on 16.08.2025. We direct RP to provide access to the above parties for accessing the data, conducting the business, if any with reasonable terms and conditions imposed by RP. We make it clear that RP is in charge of the premises and therefore all the parties are directed to be bound by the directions of RP.

All the concerned parties are directed to file reply within 2 weeks.

List the Application for hearing on 16.09.2025.’’

It is submitted by the Ld. Counsel for Respondent No. 1 that the Resolution Professional is not permitting the access as directed by the Order dated 18.08.2025 and creating obstructions in access.

The Ld. Counsel for the Appellant challenging the order submit that, when the Respondent No. 1 himself prayed permission to withdraw the application and on that, the Ld. Adjudicating Authority committed an error in permitting withdrawal with a direction to grant full access.

The submission is that, as far as Respondent No. 1 is concerned, the Suspended Director as per the order taking possession has become final, in view of the Appeal filed by Respondent No. 1, having being dismissed by this Tribunal, the Respondent No. 1 have no jurisdiction to make any further prayer with regard to the possession and access by the RP, that too in shape of recall or modification.

Ld. Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 refuting the submissions contended that, the Suspended Director was also the Managing Director of one of the Company with regard to which the obstruction is created by the Appellant.

After having heard the Ld. Counsels for the parties, we are of the view that the possession and the access by the Resolution Professional having become final by the Order dated 18.10.2024 by Ld. NCLT and by dismissal of the Appeal preferred against it by this Appellate Tribunal. The possession and the access to the RP, cannot now be disputed by anyone, including the Respondent No. 1.

As far as the submission of Respondent No. 1, that obstructions are being created by the Resolution Professional with regard to the access of certain other entities who were carrying their business from their premises in question, we are of the view that, it shall be open for such entities to file an appropriate application, if so advised before the Ld. Adjudicating Authority, and the order impugned, shall not come in their way in prosecuting the said Applications in accordance with law.

With this, we are of the view that, the impugned order of the Ld. Adjudicating Authority in so far as it had directed the Resolution Professional to ensure full access is set aside, accordingly, the instant Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (INS) No. 170 / 2026 is partly allowed.