LegalFirms.in
LegalFirms.in Judgments · legalfirms.in/judgments/ajay-gupta-vs-pramod-kumar-sharma-20220225/ · Printed 07 Nov 2026
Civil · Reportable judgment

Ajay Gupta vs Pramod Kumar Sharma

Court
Supreme Court of India
Date
25 February 2022
Case No.
Civil Appeal No. 1385 of 2022
Result
Dismissed
Bench
Dinesh Maheshwari, Vikram Nath
Citation
[2022] 2 S.C.R. 196 : 2022 INSC 236
Supreme Court Reports [2022] 2 S.C.R. 196 : 2022 INSC 236
Headnote

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016: s. 62 – Appellant was one of the resolution applicants in the corporate insolvency resolution process concerning the corporate debtor – Deliberation took place between the appellant, the other applicant and the Committee of Creditors (CoC) over the resolution plan submitted and as a result of which the appellant and the other applicant were asked to remove defects from the resolution plan so submitted – Appellant proposed for modification/amendment of the resolution plan but the same was declined by the resolution professional – Aggrieved by it, the appellant approached the Adjudicatory Authority, which allowed the appellant’s prayer of modification of resolution plan but at the same time, to provide level playing field, allowed the other resolution applicant also to make modification in its resolution plan which was submitted to the CoC – Pursuant to the order of the Adjudicating Authority, the CoC considered the resolutions plans of appellant and the other resolution applicant and approved the resolution plan of the other resolution applicant – Appellant questioned the order of the Adjudicating Authority before the Appellate Tribunal on the ground that since the resolution plan of the appellant was known to everyone hence no opportunity should have been given to the resolution applicant for modification – Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal – On appeal, held: The modification was permitted at the request of the appellant himself hence Adjudicating Atuhority, so as to provide level playing field, was justified for granting permission to other resolution applicant to place its modification for consideration of CoC – Since the appellant had chosen to disclose the terms of its resolution plan before the Adjudicating Authority, there was no fault on the part of the resolution professional or CoC or other resolution applicant – The view taken by the Adjudicating Authority as also by the Appellate Tribunal appeared to be reasonable and sound, calling for no interference.

As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.

Full Judgment Text

The Order of the Court was passed by DINESH MAHESHWARI, J. Having heard learned senior counsel for the appellant at sufficient length and having perused the material placed on record, we do not feel persuaded to entertain this appeal under Section 62 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 20161 by one of the resolution applicants2 in the corporate insolvency resolution process3 concerning the corporate debtorB.B. Foods Pvt. Ltd. The appellant seeks to question the judgment and order dated 13.01.2022 as passed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi4 in Company
Full text available to subscribers
Subscribe to access complete judgment text, daily digests, and AI-powered legal research tools. For informational and research purposes only.
View Subscription Plans →
Annual plans from ₹1,599 + GST.

This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.

All SC judgments →