##PAGE1##

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1822 of 2026 IN THE MATTER OF:

Mufin Green Finance Ltd. …Appellant(s)

Versus Keshav Khaneja Resolution Professional of Gensol …Respondent(s)

Engineering Ltd.

Present:

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Gaurav Mitra, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Dhruv Dewan, Mr.

Prashant Jain, Mr. Varun Garg, Ms. Komal Bihani, Mr.

Swapnil Jain & Ms. Aishwarya Modi Seth, Advocates For : Mr. Sumesh Dhawan Sr. Adv. Ms. Srideepa Respondent(s) Bhattacharyya, Ms. Neha Shivhare, Ms. Khyati Khemka, Ms. Krishna Saklani & Ms. Udisha Mishra, Advocates O R D E R (Hybrid Mode)

[Per: Justice Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan, Member (Judicial)]

Instant appeal has been filed by the Appellant against the impugned order dated 14/09/2026 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 1, in IA No. 1349 of 2026, moved in CP (IB) No. 195 of 2025, by which an independent forensic auditor has been appointed by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority to examine the relevant books of accounts, ledger entries, vouchers, and accounting records (including underlying electronic computerized data and email trail) with regard to the security deposit of Rs.

1,34,148,00/- pertaining to the Appellant.

2. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant submits that the Appellant is a listed, RBI-regulated NBFC, and its shares are traded on the stock exchange. The CD and the Appellant had entered into an operating lease agreement dated

24/3/2023 for the supply of 100 electric vehicles to the CD and had also executed a connected purchase agreement whereby the cars would be purchased by the CD post expiry of the term of the lease under Clause 5(d) of the agreement. The CD had paid Rs. 13,414,800/- as non-refundable payment security, adjustable by the Appellant against the due amount.

3. It is further submitted that from March 2025, the CD defaulted on the payments, and a notice dated 13/4/2025 was issued by the Appellant. Thereafter, the security deposit of Rs. 13,414,800/- was forfeited and recorded in the ledger, and the agreement was terminated via communication dated 21/4/2025 and termination letter dated 22/4/2025 and 92 vehicles out of 100 vehicles were repossessed by the appellant.

4. It is further submitted that the CIRP of the corporate debtor was commenced on 13/06/2025, and the respondent was appointed RP. The Appellant filed its claim on 10/07/2025, but in the claim verification correspondence with the RP, the Appellant had inadvertently written 21/07/2025 instead of 16/04/2025 as the date of adjustment of the security deposit. Thereafter, the Appellant filed the revised claim on 20.03.2026.

5. It is further submitted that thereafter the respondent RP has filed an application being IA No. 1349 of 2026 under Section 60(5) of the Code, seeking refund of Rs. 1,341,4800 and consequential modification of the Appellant’s Form C and also sought appointment of an independent forensic auditor, relying on a prior order of the learned adjudicating authority in the proceedings carried out in the group entity of the CD (i.e., I.A. No. 574 of 2026). By passing the impugned order, the adjudicating authority observed that the actual date of adjustment required factual verification and appointed an independent forensic auditor to inspect the Appellant’s books, ledgers, vouchers, and other records.

6. It is vehemently submitted that the direction for a forensic audit travels beyond the jurisdiction conferred under Section 60 (5) of the Code. This is because the jurisdiction available with the adjudicating authority is over claims and questions arising out of or in relation to the insolvency resolution of the CD only, however, it has no jurisdiction to subject an independent third party to a forensic examination of its books and electronic records.

7. It is further submitted that previously a wrong order has been passed by the learned adjudicating authority, may not be an excuse to justify the passing of instant illegal order. M