AKB Ventures LLP Vs Manindra Kumar Tiwari Resolution Professional of Paytail Commerce Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (NCLAT Delhi)
Summary:The NCLAT Delhi considered an appeal against the order dated 21.07.2026 passed by the NCLT, Chandigarh Bench (Court-II), in IA No.4 (CH)/2025, whereby the Resolution Plan submitted by AKB Ventures LLP was rejected despite approval by the Committee of Creditors of Paytail Commerce Private Limited with 83.97% voting share. The appellant submitted that the Resolution Plan had been rejected on the ground that it was an unsecured financial creditor falling under the caption “related party” and had a claim of Rs.11,12,50,000/-. It was further submitted that shares were issued to the appellant for Rs.1,10,850/- and that the Adjudicating Authority rejected the issuance because the shares were issued at a very low value. The appellant contended that, under Regulation 37 of the IBC read with Section 2(81) of the Companies Act and Section 2(h) of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956, it was within its right to issue such shares and valuation was never relevant. During the appeal, another financial creditor, Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company, sought to participate and proposed to seek impleadment. NCLAT directed an impleadment application to be filed within a week, stayed the directions contained in paragraphs 20 and 21 of the impugned order, directed the Resolution Professional to preserve the Corporate Debtor’s assets, and listed the appeal for 14.09.2026.
FULL TEXT OF THE NCLAT JUDGMENT/ORDER
This Appeal is against an impugned order dated 21.07.2026 passed by the Learned Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal) Chandigarh Bench (Court-II), in IA No.4 (CH)/2025 whereby the Learned Adjudicating Authority rejected the Resolution Plan submitted by the Appellant- ‘AKB Ventures LLP’ notwithstanding its approval by the CoC of Paytail Commerce Private Limited with 83.97% voting share. It is submitted the Resolution Plan has been rejected solely on the ground it was an unsecured financial creditor falling under the caption ‘related party’ and had a claim of Rs.11,12,50,000/-. The Appellant issued shares to it to the value of Rs.1,10,850/- only. Learned Adjudicating Authority rejected this issuance of the shares as were issued at a very less value. However, the Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits per Regulation 37 of the IBC read with Section 2(81) of the Companies Act and Section 2(h) of the Securities Contracts (Regulations) Act, 1956, the Appellant was perfectly within its right to issue such shares and valuation was never relevant.
2. Mr. Anand Chibber, the Learned Senior Counsel for yet another Financial Creditor has appeared and submits they have a locus in the present Appeal and intend to participate and would be filing an application for impleading them as a party to this Appeal. It is submitted by Mr. Anand Chibber, the Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Unsecured Financial Creditor namely ‘Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company’ had already challenged the status before the Learned Adjudicating Authority qua it being an unrelated party, which application is pending before the Ld. Adjudicating Authority and they did not pursue it as the Resolution Plan was rejected and there was no occasion for them to file an Appeal. However, in Appeal against the said rejection of the plan, they intend to move an application for impleadment.
3. Let an application be filed within a week from today with a copy to the Learned Counsel for the Appellant as well as to the other parties to this Appeal.
4. In the meanwhile, notices be issued in respect of the Appeal and so far as the directions given in paragraphs 20 and 21 of the impugned order is concerned, shall remain stayed. The Resolution Professional shall preserve the assets of the Corporate Debtor till the next date of hearing.
5. List the Appeal on 14.09.2026.
