Back
2025 Supreme(Cal) 260
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.
Soneko Marketing Pvt. Ltd. - Appellant
Vs.
The Committee Of Creditors Of Hindustan National Glass & Industries Ltd. and Another - Respondent
C.O. 2696 of 2025
Decided On : 29-07-2025
Important Points
Subject
Civil Law - Insolvency and Bankruptcy
Act Referred
INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY CODE : S.30(4), S.31
COMPANIES ACT : S.419(3), S.424, S.469
NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL RULES : R.11
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE : 151, O.18 R.17, O.7 R.14, S.151
Headnote
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Joy Saha, Sr. Advocate Mr. Aniruddha Chatterjee, Sr. Advocate Mr. Biswaroop Bhattacharya, Mr. Arik Banerjee, Mr. Rahul Karmakar, Mr. Shaunak Mitra, Mr. Aman Agarwal, Mr. Tanish Ganeriwala, Mr. Victor Chatterjee Advs.
For the Respondent:Mr. Sakya Sen, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Soummo Biswas, Mr. Deepanjan Dutta Roy, Mr. Yugal Jain, Ms. Sanjana Jha, Mr. Chetan Kumar Kabra, Ms. Ritika Sharma, Mr. Jishnu Chowdhury, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Vikram Wadehra, Ms. Sakshi Tiwari Advs.
For the Independent Sugar Corporation Ltd. :Mr. Krishnaraj Thakker, Sr. Advocate Mr. Rishav Banerjee, Ms. Pooja Chakraborty, Ms. Kiran Sharma, Mr. Sagnick Aditya Advs.
For the Intervener : Mr. Yadunath Bhargavan, Mr. S. R. Kakrania, Mr. T. Kakrania, Mr. S. Mukherjee Advs.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. cirp must be completed within a specified time frame. (Para 4 , 5 , 43) |
| 2. nclt procedures must adhere to natural justice and a defined timeframe. (Para 17 , 18 , 20) |
| 3. once reserved for judgment, no further applications shall be entertained. (Para 22 , 26 , 50) |
| 4. interference post-reservation may undermine judicial efficiency. (Para 37 , 39 , 41) |
JUDGMENT :
HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.
1. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the objector to the Plan Approval Application No. 1A (IBC) Plan/16/KB/2025 seeking a direction upon the Learned Special Bench, National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata Bench to hear out an application being IVN. P (IBC) 25/KB/2025 and for stay of pronouncement of judgment.
2. On a petition being filed by DBS Bank Ltd., a financial creditor, Hindusthan National Glass and Industries Limited (hereinafter referred to as Corporate Debtor) was admitted to Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (for short CIRP) vide order dated October 21, 2021 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (for short NCLT), Kolkata Bench in CP(IB) No. 369/KB/2020. The opposite party no. 2 was appointed as Resolution Professional (for short “RP”). A Committee of Creditors (for short “CoC”) was constituted in accordance with the provisions of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (for short “IBC”) and has been impleaded as the opposite party no. 1 herein. Pursuant to the initiation of the CIRP, the CoC issued invitations for submission of resolution plans from prospective resolution applicants for resolution of the Corporate Debtor as a going concern.
3. Independent Sugar Corporation Ltd. (for short “INSCO”) submitted a resolution plan for taking over the Corporate Debtor. Petitioner filed an intervention application bearing IVN.P (IBC) 21/KB/2025 objecting to the resolution plan submitted by INSCO.
4. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Review Petition No. 657 of 2025 arising out of Civil Appeal No. 6071 of 2023 passed an order dated May 16, 2025 directing the CoC and the Adjudicating Authority to complete the CIRP both under Sections 30(4) and 31 of IBC, 2016 within a period of six weeks from the date of passing the said order.
5. The CP (IB) No. 369/KB/2020 along with all connected IAs were pending before the NCLT, Kolkata Bench, Court No. II and the Hon’ble Judicial Member recused from hearing the said matter. Accordingly the Hon’ble President NCLT constituted a Special Bench of the NCLT, Kolkata as per Section 419(3) of the Companies Act, 2013 and the Hon’ble Members were requested to sit physically at NCLT, Kolkata (New Premises) from 03.07.2025 regularly to complete the hearing.
6. After conclusion of hearing, IVN.P (IBC)/21(KB)/2025 was reserved for orders on July 10, 2025. Other connected applications were also heard on July 10, 2025 and July 11, 2025 and the entire matter was reserved for orders on July 11, 2025. Subsequent thereto, the petitioner filed an application being IVN.P (IBC) 25/KB/2025 for bringing on record the letter dated June 30, 2025 issued by INSCO and addressed to CoC and RP.
7. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Hon’ble Members of the Special Bench of NCLT, Kolkata Bench declined to entertain the plea of the petitioner to take up the hearing of IVN.P (IBC) 25/KB/2025 on the ground that the matter has been reserved for orders.
8. Mr. Joy Saha, learned Senior advocate appearing in support of the application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India contended that after the matter was reserved for orders, petitioner could discover the letter dated June 30, 2025 issued by INSCO and addressed to CoC and RP, which was discussed in the 42nd CoC meeting held on July 14, 2025 i.e., after the matter was reserved for orders. He further contended that the RP and CoC deliberately suppressed the letter dated June 30, 2025 issued by INSCO. He submitted that from the said letter it would be evident that the Resolution Plan of INSCO dated June 8, 2025
