TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 1090
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r. Aryan Pudhiyar, Advocate for R1. Ms. Nalini Lodha and Mr. Rohan Talwar, Advocates for R2. ORDER The present appeal filed under Section 61 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 ('IBC' in short) by the Appellant arises out of the Order dated 02.12.2025 (hereinafter referred to as 'Impugned Order') passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench Bench-I) in IA No. 1214(Ahm)/2025 in C.P. (IB) No. 395(Ahm)/2025. By the impugned order, the Adjudicating Authority has disposed of the application IA/1214/AHM/2025 by granting permission to the Appellant to travel to USA subject to imposing of certain conditions. Aggrieved by the conditions laid down in the impugned order, the present appeal has been p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of America for the period from 18.10.2025 to 27.12.2025 or such other period as this Hon'ble Authority deem fit and to report back to this Hon'ble Adjudicating Authority upon his return; (b) Direct that the Applicant shall keep the Bankruptcy Trustee informed of his travel itinerary, contact details abroad, and shall remain available through electronic means during the said period; and (c) Pass such other or further orders as this Hon'ble Authority may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice." 3. The Adjudicating Authority has considered IA No. 1214 of 2025 and passed impugned order dated 02.12.2025 granting permission to the Appellant to travel to the USA subject to certain conditions as detailed out at para-33 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l as to Bankruptcy Trustee and remain available via electronic means (video conferencing/email) for all proceedings. (e) The Applicant's father, Shri Kishorsinh Solanki, shall attend all hearings and provide necessary cooperation as authorised representative. (f) The applicant shall not seek any further extension to continue to stay, except for the itinerary that would be placed before the Tribunal as well as to Bankruptcy Trustee. (g) Considering that, the bankruptcy proceedings are time bound, the Applicant shall also cooperate in the bankruptcy proceedings and respond to any queries raised by the bankruptcy trustee in a timely manner, even while being in the USA. (h) The Applicant shall report back to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ch. These conditions have created an intractable situation which was impossible to overcome and hence was as good as being denied the permission to travel abroad and that this denial to travel to USA would be extremely prejudicial to the interests of his family and himself. It was also added that these harsh conditionalities have been imposed on the Appellant by the Adjudicating Authority inspite of his being financially incapacitated basis the misleading contention raised by the Bankruptcy Trustee that the Appellant had not cooperated with them in disclosing the details of assets and other immovable properties. Attention was also drawn to the fact that the Court of Special Judge (CBI Court), Ahmedabad while according permission to the Appe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of Gujarat seeking permission to travel abroad was also pending. 6. It was therefore contended by the Respondent No.2 that the conditions imposed by the Adjudicating Authority cannot be seen to be unreasonable since there is an attendant risk of the Appellant trying to dissipate his assets abroad and frustrate the bankruptcy process and prejudice the interests of financial creditors. Echoing similar contentions as made by Respondent No.2, the Ld. Counsel of the Respondent No.1-Bankruptcy Trustee further added that the Appellant has not demonstrated the requisite level of cooperation to the Bankruptcy Trustee. The Bankruptcy Trustee also objected to the request for travel abroad by the Appellant as his presence was much required for compl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that the Appellant cannot be expected to have any source available with him which he could tap for the purpose of provisioning this Security Deposit amount. We also do not find any material placed on record either by Respondent No.1 or Respondent No.2 to show that the Appellant was in possession of a sum of the magnitude of Rs 40 Cr or in a position to muster such a sizeable resource. Hence, we are inclined to agree with the Appellant that imposition of such an impossible condition which by its very nature cannot be practically fulfilled tantamount to blocking any possibility of the Appellant to travel abroad. We are therefore of the view that this condition deserves to be relaxed. As regards the condition placed at para 33(b) which mandate....