ORDER

IA (I.B.C)/1829 (MB)2026 in C.P. (IB)/384(MB)2023

1) Ms. Bhagyashree, Ld. Counsel for the Applicant, Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, Ld. Counsel for the Monitoring Committee and Mr. Kunal Kanungo, Ld. Counsel for the Respondent No. 3 are present.

2) The present Interlocutory Application has been filed by the Applicant/Suspended Director of the Corporate Debtor, Mr. Atul Desai, praying for the following reliefs:

i. Recall and set aside the order dated 20.01.2026 passed by this Hon'ble Tribunal in Company Petition (IB) No. 384 of 2023, approving the Resolution Plan submitted by Respondent No. 3.

ii. Declare all acts, deeds, and things done by the Respondent No. 1 in his capacity as Resolution Professional from December 2025 onwards as illegal, void ab initio, and non-est in law.

iii. Remove the Respondent No. 1, Mr. Vishnu Kant Kabra, from the position of Resolution Professional of the Corporate Debtor forthwith.

iv. Appoint a new and independent Resolution Professional to conduct the CIRP of the Corporate Debtor afresh in accordance with the provisions of the Code.

v. Direct the newly appointed Resolution Professional to reconstitute the Committee of Creditors in strict compliance with Section 21 of the Code and thereafter reconsider the CIRP in accordance with law.

vi. Grant the ad-interim and interim reliefs as prayed for in the accompanying Interim Application.

3) The Applicant submits as under:

i. The entire Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) of the Corporate Debtor is vitiated by manifest illegality, jurisdictional error, and fraud perpetrated upon this Tribunal by the Respondent No. 1, the Resolution Professional, as the Respondent No. 1 was suspended from acting as an Insolvency Professional by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) for a period of one year, vide a detailed and reasoned order dated 11.11.2025. The said suspension became effective in December 2025, i.e., prior to the approval of the Resolution Plan. Despite being statutorily disqualified and ceasing to have any authority to act as a Resolution Professional, the Respondent No. 1 continued to illegally discharge functions, participate in the proceedings before this Tribunal, and facilitate the approval of the Resolution Plan without disclosing the fact of his suspension. This constitutes a deliberate and fraudulent suppression of a material fact.

ii. The order of the IBBI also makes damning findings that the Committee of Creditors (CoC) was improperly constituted by the Respondent No. 1 in gross violation of Section 21(2) of the Code. Therefore, any decision taken by such an illegally constituted CoC, including the approval of the Resolution Plan, is non-est and void ab initio. It is a settled principle of law that an order obtained by playing fraud on the court is a nullity and can be recalled at any stage. Furthermore, any act performed by a person lacking jurisdiction is a nullity in the eyes of the law. The impugned order dated 20.01.2026, being founded upon the actions of a disqualified professional and an illegally constituted CoC, is a nullity and deserves to be recalled in the interest of justice.

4) The Applicant has taken various grounds to support the averments made in the present Interlocutory Application. The Applicant states that the Respondent No. 1, in his capacity as an officer of the Court, had a solemn duty to disclose all material facts to this Tribunal. The fact of his suspension by the IBBI was a material fact that went to the root of his authority to continue the CIRP. The Respondent No. 1 deliberately and willfully suppressed this material fact from this Tribunal and the stakeholders. This act of suppression amounts to playing fraud upon the Court.

5) To buttress the arguments, the Applicant relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Iagannath, (1994) 1 SCC 1, wherein, it is unequivocally held that a judgment or decree obtained by playing fraud on the court