TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (4) TMI 1162
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d. 2. Brief background facts giving rise to this Appeal needs to be noted, which are: (i) The Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process ("CIRP") against the CD commenced vide order dated 24.02.2020. Respondent - Gaurav Ashok Adukia was appointed as Interim Resolution Professional ("IRP"). The Appellant being Ex-Director of the CD challenged the admission order by way of Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.376 of 2020, which Appeal was dismissed on 23.07.2020. The IRP constituted the Committee of Creditors ("CoC") on 29.07.2020 with ICICI Bank as a sole CoC Member. The claim of ICICI Bank of Rs. 10.75 crores was admitted. The IRP was appointed as Resolution Professional ("RP"). Form-G was issued inviting Expression of Interest ("EoI"), which was published on 24.09.2020, which was latter modified. The RP received three Resolution Plans, which were evaluated by the CoC. Voting on Plans commenced 07.07.2021 and concluded on 15.07.2021. The Resolution Plan submitted by M/s Kamini Metalliks Pvt. Ltd. was approved with 100% vote share. The RP filed IA No.1719 of 2021 on 29.07.2021 seeking approval of the Resolution Plan. The Adjudicating Authority vide order dated 12.09.2022 approved ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ious in nature. The prayers sought in the application are extracted below: A. To direct the registry to issue notice to the captioned respondent, framing therein the charges, which the answering respondent is required to meet in exercise of the adjudicatory authority's powers u/s. 425 of the Companies Act. B. To hold that through falsities/misleads/dishonesty the alleged perjurer tended to deflect the course of justice in due adjudication of IA 4174/2025, hence it is expedient in the interest of justice, to record a finding as per Sec 379 (1) (a) of BNSS r/w Sec. 424(4) of the Companies Act, that - i. The alleged perjurer made dishonest/false and misleading statements in his submission before this Tribunal with dishonest suppression and twisting and concealment of material facts to serve his ulterior purpose in covering his tracks of crime; ii. The alleged perjurer, evasively, dishonestly, frivolously, and blandiy denied the issues/reasoned findings and the binding precedents, hence prima-facie are liable for being pursued under perjury/ contempt proceedings and that such an act itself is also an offence under section Sec 246 OF BNS [209 of IPC] ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... other reliefs/ directions given the facts and circumstances of the present case." 6. We have already noticed the sequence of the events above. The Appellant is Suspended Director of the CD. The CIRP commenced on 24.02.2020. The Resolution Plan was approved on 16.07.2021 by 100% vote share of the CoC. IA No.1719 of 2021 was filed by the RP for approval of the Resolution Plan, which application was allowed by the Adjudicating Authority vide order dated 12.09.2022. The Adjudicating Authority in the impugned order has noticed that after implementation of the Plan, the Applicant has filed IA No.3068 of 2024 on 08.05.2024 seeking to set aside the approval of the Resolution Plan by the CoC and another application - IA No.4174 of 2025 was filed on 31.08.2025 seeking similar set of reliefs, to which a reply was filed by the RP on 24.09.2025. The above facts have been noticed by the Adjudicating Authority in Paragraphs 8 and 9 of the impugned order, which are as follows: "8. After implementation of the Resolution Plan, the Applicant has filed IA/3068/2024 on 08.05.2024 seeking to set aside the approval of the Resolution Plan by the CoC. When the pleadings were complete in IA/306....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the approval was nothing, but misguided endeavour of the Appellant to keep the litigation alive. 9. Another application being IA No.4174 of 2025 was filed by the Appellant praying for similar reliefs, in which RP filed its' reply affidavit on 24.09.2025, which reply affidavit is basis for filing the perjury application by the Appellant. The Adjudicating Authority in the impugned order has considered the allegations made by the Appellant in the perjury application and has adverted to reply of the RP to IA No.4174 of 2025, in which reply perjury was alleged by the Appellant. Each paragraph of the reply of the RP has been noticed and considered by the Adjudicating Authority. The Adjudicating Authority has also adverted to what amounts to perjury. Various judgments relied by the Appellant have been noticed. Adverting to each paragraph of the reply of the RP - Paragraphs 9, 25 and 26, the Adjudicating Authority has come to the conclusion that contents of the reply are not perjurious. Other paragraphs where allegations were made in Paragraphs 28, 29, 31 and 32 of the reply have also been gone into by the Adjudicating Authority and finding returned that there is no perjury committed b....