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

2026 Supreme(Online)(NCLT) 277

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL
Smt. Jayashree Agnihotri – Appellant
Versus
Hasti Mal Kacchara Resolution Professional Pushp Ratna Realty Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
IA(I.B.C) - 611/2025



Advocates:
For the Petitioner:Chiranjeev Saboo

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL COURT NO. 1 ITEM No.206 CP(IB)/26(MP)2024 Order under Section 60(5) r.w. Rule 11 IN THE MATTER OF:

Smt. Jayashree Agnihotri ........Applicant V/s Hasti Mal Kacchara RP Pushp Ratna Realty Pvt Ltd ........Respondent Coram:

Hon’ble Shri Brajendra Mani Tripathi, Member (J)

Hon’ble Shri Man Mohan Gupta Member (T)

ORDER

Delivered on 13/01/2026 The case is fixed for pronouncement of the order. The order is pronounced in open Court vide separate sheet.

Sd/- Sd/-

MAN MOHAN GUPTA BRAJENDRA MANI TRIPATHI MEMBER (TECHNICAL) MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

Neeraj

ADJUDICATING AUTHORITY NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL BENCH AT INDORE IA/611(MP)2025 in CP(IB)/26(MP)2024 IA/611(MP)2025 [An Application filed under Section 60(5) of the IBC, 2016 r.w. Rjule 11 of the NCLT Rules, 2016]

Jayshree Agnihotri, W/o Late Rama Shankar Agnihotri, 71, Shrinagar Extension, Indore-452017, M.P. ……. Applicant Vs Hasti Mal Kachhara, Resolution Professional, Pushp Ratna Realty Pvt Ltd, A-602, Nirman Apartments, Pump House, Vikas Nagar, Andheri (East), Mumbai City, Maharashtra-400093 In the matter of: CP(IB)/26(MP)2024 [An Application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016]

Nirmal Kumar Jain & Ors

163, Anoop Nagar, Indore, Madhya Pradesh-452001 ……Financial Creditor Vs Pushp Ratna Realty Pvt Ltd having its registered office at G-1, Pushparatan Castle, 12 Kanchanbag, Indore Tukoganj, Indore, Madhya Pradesh, India, 452001 Email ID: pushparatnarealty@gmail.com ……..Corporate Debtor Coram: Brajendra Mani Tripathi, Hon’ble Member (J)

Man Mohan Gupta, Hon’ble Member (T)

Appearance:

For the Applicant : Mr. Chiranjeev Saboo, Adv (Physical)

For the Respondent : Mr. Ayush J. Rajani, Adv (Online)

Order Pronounced On 13.01.2026

O R D E R

1. At the outset, we are constrained to observe that the present Application appears to have been filed with the intent to distract the directions & pace of the ongoing CIRP in CP (IB) No. 26 (MP) 2024. The said proceedings are presently at an advanced stage, wherein the Resolution Plan submitted by the Resolution Applicant has already been approved by the Committee of Creditors and was pending consideration for approval before this Adjudicating Authority as on the date of filing of the present Application and stood reserved for orders on the date.

2. The present Application has been filed by the Applicant under Section 60(5) of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 read with Rule 11 of NCLT Rules, 2016 with the following prayers: -

(i) Set aside the Resolution Professional's decision dated 22.09.2025 whereby it refused to place the Applicant's proposal before the Committee of Creditors.

(ii) Direct the Resolution Professional to place the Applicant's proposal before the Committee of Creditors for consideration and voting in accordance with law.

(iii) Alternatively, permit withdrawal of CIRP proceedings against the Corporate Debtor under Section 12A read with Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules, in the interest of justice.

(iv) Stay further CIRP proceedings pending disposal of this IA.

3. The Applicant submits its willingness to provide better Resolution Plan then the submitted one by the Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA), whose plan has been approved by the Committee of Creditors (CoC) as on date, and further undertakes to pay the full claimed amounts to all creditors, including any balance amounts that may have been reduced or deducted under the approved resolution plan.

4. The Applicant submits that she holds 50% shareholder of the Corporate Debtor and has been subjected to oppressive and prejudicial actions at the hands of her joint venture partner. The Applicant further submits that collusive and proxy litigation was initiated at the behest of the Jain Group with the sole and mala fide intent of usurping the highly valuable land owned by the CD. The Jain Group, while holding the remaining 50% shareholding in the CD, had made no financial investment in the project, as the entire land forming the subject matter of the real estate develo

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
whatsapp-icon Back to top