SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(NCLT) 4646

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL
REKHA PANKAJ MAHESHWARI PROP SHREE LAXMIRAJ ALLOYS – Appellant
Versus
DHARMA EXTRUSIONS PRIVATE LIMITED – Respondent
IA(I.B.C) - 921/2024



Advocates:
For the Petitioner:SAHIL JAYESH RAO
For the Respondent:Lalit M Patel

IN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL

AHMEDABAD

COURT - 2

ITEM No.304

IA/921(AHM)2024 in CP(IB)/334(AHM)2022

Orders under Section 60(5) of IBC,2016 r/w Rule 11 of IBC,2016

IN THE MATTER OF:

Rekha Pankaj Maheshwari(Prop Shree Laxmiraj Alloys) ........Applicant

V/s

Rishabhchand Lodha RP of Dharma Extrusions Private ........Respondent

Limited

Order delivered on: 27/03/2025

Coram:

Mrs. Chitra Hankare, Hon’ble Member(J)

Dr. Velamur G Venkata Chalapathy, Hon’ble Member(T)

ORDER

The case is fixed for pronouncement of order.

The order is pronounced in open Court, vide separate sheet.

-sd- -sd-

DR. V. G. VENKATA CHALAPATHY CHITRA HANKARE

MEMBER (TECHNICAL) MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

IN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD (COURT - II)

IA 921/ NCLT / AHM / 2024 IN CP(IB) No. 334/NCLT/AHM/2022 (Under section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 read with rule 11 of the NCLT rules)

IN THE MATTER OF:

Rekha Pankaj Maheshwari (Prop. of Shree Laxmira Alloys)

……Applicant/Original Operational Creditor Versus Rishabhchand Lodha (RP of M/s Dharma Extrusion Pvt. Ltd.

...Respondent Order pronounced on 27.03.2025 Coram:

MRS. CHITRA HANKARE HON’BLE MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

MR. VELAMUR G VENKATA CHALAPATHY HON’BLE MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

MEMO OF PARTIES Rekha Pankaj Maheshwari (Prop of Shree Laxmiraj Alloys)

Reg. Address: 298/5/7, Ground Floor, Lakod Complex, GIDC industrial Estate, Makarpura, Vadodara- 390010, Gujarat ……Applicant/Original Operational Creditor Versus Rishabchand Lodha (RP of M/s Dharma Extrusion Pvt. Ltd.)

Reg. Address: 90/P/4, Village Baska, PO Baska, Halol, Panchmahals-389350, Gujarat ….. Respondent Present:

For the Raj Radhe : Mr. Shail Rao, Adv. in IA 921 of 2024.

For the RP : Mr. Harshil Patel, Adv.

Resolution Professional : Mr. Rishabh Chand Lodha

JUDGEMENT

1. This application is filed under Section 60(5) of the IBC, 2016 read with Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules praying for rejection of the proposed resolution plan and sending the same for reconsideration before the Committee of Creditors. The applicant also prayed for the direction to the respondent and the CoC to consider the plan of the applicant applied either individually or in consortium and also to order liquidation of the CD at this value as proposed by the potential successful resolution applicant.

2. The Corporate Debtor in CP(IB)/334/AHM/2022 was admitted to Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process vide order dated 06.06.2023 and the Interim Resolution Professional Mr. Hitesh Narayanbhai Agarwal with registration no. IBBI/IPA-001/IP-P-01183/2019- 2020/12639 was appointed. The first COC Meeting dated 12.07.2023 proposed to appoint the respondent Rishabhchand Lodha as the Resolution Professional and the same was approved by this Tribunal vide order dated

27.07.2023.

3. Applicant submitted that RP failed in his duty to manage affairs and preserve the assets of the CD as well as running the operations of the CD as provided under Section 20, 23(1) and 24(3)(c). It is submitted that RP failed in his duty to follow the directions of this Tribunal dated 19.06.2023 and also failed to take necessary action for misappropriation of the major asset and took the statement of the suspended directors at face value that the assets were sold off when he had the knowledge after taking control of Corporate Debtor that entire consideration was shown to be received in cash.

4. It is further submitted that M/s AVM Resolution Professional is a branch / head office of the respondent RP itself as seen from its website address https://avmresolution.in and were part of the Committee of Creditors Meeting from the very first meeting. Despite being his own officer, the respondent got approved Rs. 30,000/- per month as consultation fees under the guise of "to avail specialized services and support of IPE" in addition to 1,00,000/- fee charged by him per month in order to unfairly and illegally extract higher monthly fees in the form of CIRP cost from the Corporate Debtor and ultimately reducing its asset value to be obtained at the time of li

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top