NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL COURT-V, MUMBAI BENCH

205. IA(PLAN)/104/2025 IA/2318/2025 IA/1943/2025 IA/385/2026 C.P. (IB)/624(MB)2023 IN THE MATTER OF Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited … Petitioner Vs Meeti Developers Private Limited … Respondent U/s 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 Order Delivered on 10.02.2026 CORAM:

SH. MOHAN PRASAD TIWARI SH. CHARANJEET SINGH GULATI MEMBER (J) MEMBER (T)

Appearance through VC/Physical/Hybrid Mode:

For the Petitioner in IA/385/2026: Adv. Maulik Chokshi a/w Adv. Jay Botadara (PH)

For the Respondent in IA/1943/2025: Adv. Shyam Kapadia a/w Kathleen Lobo, Adv. Vikrant Dere (R-11) (PH)

Fort the Respondent in IA 2318/2025: Adv Prashant Gawali (R1,2 & 3) (PH)

For the RP: Adv. Amar Vivek, Aditya Gauri, Damini Srestha, Anant Jain, Aryan Chhabra (VC)

_____________________________________________________________________

ORDER IA/385/2026- This IA has been filed by Lekhi Forgings Private Limited against the RP seeking following prayers: -

a) “To direct the Respondent to provide the information memorandum, Request for Resolution Plan and copy of the Resolution Plan; And b) To reject the resolution plan filed by the Respondent bearing IA No. 104 of 2025; And c) Such other or further orders, as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

Ld. Counsel for the Applicant submits that the property in question which is also subject matter of the Resolution Plan is under dispute and the prayers sought should be granted in view of the following grounds:

A- Non-filing of the Financial statement and annual return by the Corporate Debtor would entitle the Respondent to claim the asset as a part of the estate of the Corporate Debtor.

B- Property cannot be sold when there is dispute in the title of the property and the matter is sub-judice before the Civil Courts.

C- The duties of the Respondent as a Resolution Professional during the CIRP.

Elaborating the above grounds, he submits that the non-filing of the financial statements are in contravention to Section 92 read with Section 129 of the Companies Act. He also refers to the order passed by this Bench in IA/974/2025 dated 02.12.2025, wherein reference has been made to the property being Shorewala Sadan, measuring 552.68 square meters. He submits that the said order is in appeal before the Hon’ble NCLAT and therefore, the IA seeking approval of the Plan should not be taken up till the appeal is decided by the Hon’ble NCLAT. Referring to the provisions of Section 53A read with Section 55(1)(d) of the Transfer of the Property Act, 1882, ld. Counsel submits that the property is owned by them and therefore, could not be a matter of the Resolution Plan. He also submits that the duties are casted upon the RP have not been properly discharged and therefore, the prayers sought in this IA should be granted in the interest of justice.

Per-contra, ld. Counsel for the RP submits that in IA 3564 of 2024 filed by the same Applicant as in the present IA, the issue was decided and the said IA was dismissed with cost of Rs. 50,000/- imposed on the Applicant in IA 3564 of 2024. He also submits that the grounds on which the prayers are sought to be agitated before this Tribunal are not the grounds either for supply of information memorandum, RFRP or copy of the Resolution Plan or for that matter rejection of the Resolution Plan. He submits that non-filing of the financial statements and annual returns, the nature of property being disputed as also none of the duties of the Respondents as a Resolution Professional being assailed as illegal cannot be ground for prayers sought in this IA.

We have considered the facts of the case and submission of the ld. Counsel for the parties and note that an IA 3564 of 2024 was also filed by the Applicant in this IA, which was dismissed vide order dated 30.06.2025. We find it pertinent to extract the relevant portion of the order here for ready reference:

“We have considered the facts of the case, and the