Shripal Sevantilal Morakhia Vs Bhrugesh Amin (NCLAT Delhi)
Summary: The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, dismissed the appeal filed by Shripal Sevantilal Morakhia challenging the approval of the resolution plan concerning Smaaash Entertainment Private Limited. The Tribunal held that the appeal had become infructuous following the rejection of a subsequent application raising substantially the same objections against the resolution plan. The appeal challenged the Adjudicating Authority’s order dated 7 May 2025 in I.A. No. 69 of 2024, through which the resolution plan had been approved. The appellant had initially filed an application objecting to the plan but subsequently withdrew it. Thereafter, another application, I.A. No. 1985/MB/2025, was filed challenging the plan approval.
The subsequent application was rejected by the Adjudicating Authority on 17 February 2026. During the hearing on 16 March 2026, counsel for the respondents submitted that the rejection rendered the pending appeal infructuous. The appellant indicated that steps were being taken to challenge the subsequent order, and the matter was adjourned to 23 March 2026. At the hearing on 23 March 2026, the appellant sought permission to place additional documents on record. However, the NCLAT observed that the allegations proposed to be pursued in the appeal had already been raised in the subsequent application, which stood dismissed.
The Tribunal concluded that the pending appeal need not proceed further and dismissed it as infructuous. It expressly preserved the appellant’s liberty to challenge the order dated 17 February 2026 in accordance with law. Counsel for the Resolution Professional also informed the Tribunal that the resolution plan had been fully implemented. The order was confined to the procedural status of the appeal. The Tribunal did not undertake a fresh examination of the merits of the approved resolution plan or the appellant’s substantive objections.
FULL TEXT OF THE NCLAT JUDGMENT/ORDER
Ld. Counsel for Appellant prays that he should be permitted to file certain additional record.
The matter was taken on 16/03/2026, when this tribunal passed following order :
ORDER
“Counsel for the respondent submits that in view of the subsequent order dated 17.02.2026 passed in I.A. No. 1985/MB/2025 and IA No. 69/Plan/2024 this appeal has become infructuous.
Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that appellant is taking steps to challenge the subsequent order and the order in this appeal be passed on the next date.
List this appeal on 23.03.2026.”
2. Ld. Counsel for Respondent submits that in view of the subsequent order dated 17/02/2026 passed in I.A 1985/MB/2025 this Appeal has become infructuous.
3. This Appeal has been filed challenging the order passed by Adjudicating Authority 07/05/2025 in I.A. 69 of 2024, by which the Adjudicating Authority has approved the Resolution Plan.
4. Appellant has filed an Application objecting the Resolution Plan, which was withdrawn and Appellant filed another Application, I.A. 1985/MB/2025 objecting to the approval of the Plan, which came to be rejected by order dated 17/02/2026.
5. When the case was taken on 16/03/2026, today’s date was fixed at the request of the Appellant.
6. Today, when the Appeal is taken, Ld. Counsel for Appellant stated that he wants to bring certain additional document on record.
7. We are of the view that the same allegations, were made against the Resolution Plan in I.A 1985/MB/2025, which was sought to be canvassed in this Appeal and the said application having been dismissed, for which the Appellant took liberty to inform that he is challenging the subsequent order by a separate Appeal. Be as it may.
8. We are of the view that this Appeal need not proceeded any further and dismiss as infructuous.
9. It shall be open for the Appellant to challenge the subsequent order in accordance with law.
10. Ld. Counsel for Resolution Professional submitted that Plan has been fully implemented.
11. Appeal is dismissed.
