TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 1813
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h Kumar Jain: (Oral) This appeal is against the order dated 03.07.2025 by which an application bearing I.A No. 1180 of 2025 filed by Vikas Kasliwal, Ex-promoter and director of Shree Ram Urban Infrastructure Ltd. (CD) against the Appellant, namely, Pankaj R Majithia, RP appointed vide order dated 22.12.2022 replacing the erstwhile RP, namely, Shri Gopal Choudhary, has been allowed and M/s Truvisory Insolvency Professional Pvt. Ltd. has been appointed as the new RP. 2. In brief, the CD, namely, Shree Ram Urban Infrastructure Ltd. was admitted into CIRP vide order dated 06.11.2019 and Shri Gopal Choudhary was appointed as the IRP at that time and was later on confirmed as RP vide order dated 06.01.2022. 3. Shorn of unnecessary detail....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) and (g); i. That this Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to pass such other and further directions and reliefs as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper to meet the ends of justice. 4. This application was contested by the Appellant by filing reply. The Tribunal recorded reasons in paras 6, 7, 8 & 9 of the impugned order for holding that the present appellant has been remiss in performing of his duties as RP, enjoined upon him under the provisions of the Code and thus replaced him with the new RP. 5. Aggrieved against this order, the present appeal has been filed in which the Appellant has made a prayer for setting aside the impugned order. 6. However, during the course of hearing, new RP, namely, M/s Truvisory I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Tribunal on 17.02.2025 as defect free. 9. It is further submitted that after the defects were removed on 17.02.2025, the application was listed before the Tribunal on 19.02.2025. It is thus submitted that there was no lapse on the part of the Appellant in not pursuing the application. 10. Secondly, it is submitted that notice of the Mhad dated 18.05.2023 was not personally served upon the Appellant. In this regard, he has drawn our attention to the letter dated 07.02.2024 which has been served by the Appellant through his counsel Arshil Ajay Shah in which it is averred that the Appellant came to know about the notice dated 18.05.2023 in routine inspection of the building on which it was affixed by the Mhad authorities. It is thus ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent to Mhad. As a matter of fact, from the letter dated 04.07.2023, Counsel for Respondent No. 1 has tried to show that the Appellant himself has admitted that he had received the letter on 04.07.2023 which means that his assertion in the letter dated 07.02.2024 was false in which it has been mentioned through his counsel that the Appellant came to know about the notice which was alleged to have been pasted on the buildings and came to his notice per chance in routine inspection. 13. In respect of I.A No. 872 of 2025, Counsel for Respondent No. 1 has submitted that if the application was alleged to have been filed on 12.06.2024 then it was the duty of the Appellant to enquire from the registry about the status of the application. Allegat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....8.05.2023 received by us on 04.07.2023 ref no. EE/GS/DE-III/2107/2023" falsifies the stand of the Appellant that notice dated 18.05.2023 was not received and also raises the question about his integrity because in the notice dated 07.02.203, which was sent by the Appellant through his counsel, he has mentioned that the said notice was seen by the Appellant per chance pasted on the building during his routine inspection. He did not deliberately give the date on which date the said inspection was carried out. Secondly, the application bearing I.A No. 872 of 2025, which was filed on 12.06.2024, was not pursued by the Appellant because after filing the application he did not care to enquire about its status from the registry. He has only relied....