2025 (11) TMI 443

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....h Tandon and Mr. Sachin Jain, Advocates for R-1, R-3 & R-4. Mr. Abhirup Dasgupta, Mr. Rahul Gupta, Mr. Rahul Dadhich and Ms. Vagisha Tiwari, Advocates for R-2. ORDER Heard learned counsel Mr. Sumesh Dhawan appearing for the appellant as well as learned Sr. counsel Mr. Krishnendu Dutta appearing for the R-1, R-3 & R-4 and learned counsel appearing for the RP. 2. These two appeals have been filed challenging the order dated 16.09.2025 passed by the adjudicating authority (National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi Bench, Court IV) by which the I.A. Nos. 3699 & 3793/2024 filed by the appellant has been rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant challenging the order submits that IAs were filed seeking a declaration that R-3 & ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....agraph 5 (vi). 5. We have considered the submissions of the counsel for the parties and perused the records. 6. The applications I.A.3699/2024 was filed by the appellant making following prayers: "(i) Delete Respondent No. 3 and Respondent No. 4 from the COC of the Corporate Debtor for being related parties to the Corporate Debtor; (ii) Direct the Respondent No. 2 not to hold further COC meetings of the Corporate Debtor till the Hon'ble Supreme Court decide Civil Appeal No. 6288/2022 and Civil Appeal No. 6273/2022 filed against the decision of the Hon'ble National Company Law Appellate Tribunal in Company Appeal (AT) Insolvency No. 356 of 2022; or (iii) Pass such other order(s), directions(s), relief....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....and take steps for curing the defects, if any and upload the short note on e-portal of this Adjudicating Authority within three days. Today, the short notes on behalf of both the parties are available on e-portal of this Adjudicating Authority within three days. Order stands reserved on maintainability." 9. The grievance of the appellant is that orders were reserved on the maintainability and the adjudicating authority in the impugned order has not proceeded to dismiss the application on merits. It has held that application is not maintainable and this is attempt to reopen already settled issues. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent has relied on the written submissions which were made by the appellant in Section 7 proceedi....