# In the matter of Deputy Commissioner, UTGST, Daman vs. Rajeev Dhingra & Ors.

> NCLAT judgment dated 2023-09-14. Citation: TCN-2023-NCLAT-00205. The case involves four appeals against orders passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National…

- **Court:** NCLAT
- **Order date:** 14 Sept 2023
- **Citation:** TCN-2023-NCLAT-00205
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/deputy-commissioner-utgst-daman-vs-rajeev-dhingra-ors-a08d65a3

## Summary

### Background

The case involves four appeals against orders passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench) related to the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) of Radha Madhav Corporation Ltd. The Adjudicating Authority had approved a resolution plan submitted by Vama, leading to appeals by CRP Infrastructure Pvt Ltd (CRP), UTGST, and AC-CGST, primarily contesting the rejection of their resolution plan and claims, respectively. The CIRP was initiated on 22.10.2020. The appeals challenge the approval of Vama's resolution plan and the rejection of claims by UTGST and AC-CGST, which were filed belatedly.

## Facts

The Adjudicating Authority initiated CIRP for Radha Madhav Corporation Ltd. on 22.10.2020. The IRP issued a public announcement on 12.11.2020, setting 25.11.2020 as the last date for claim submissions. The CoC was formed on 03.12.2020 and decided to replace the IRP with a Resolution Professional (RP). The RP published Form G on 06.02.2021, inviting Expression of Interest (Eol) with a deadline of 21.02.2021. The RP informed UTGST about claim submissions via letters dated 17.03.2021, 09.07.2021, and 24.08.2021. UTGST submitted its claim on 09.11.2021, which the RP rejected on 03.12.2021 for being late. AC-CGST submitted its claim on 02.11.2021, which was also rejected by the RP on 02.12.2021 for being late. CRP submitted its Eol on 05.10.2021, which the RP rejected. The

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the RP and CoC committed any material …

**Ratio:** The commercial wisdom of the CoC is paramount, and the Adjudicating Authority should not

…

**Reasoning:** CRP failed to submit its Eol and resolution plan within the stipulated timelines, despite

…

**Interpretation:** The IBC emphasizes timely resolution, and the CoC's decisions based on

…

**Application:** CRP's failure to adhere to timelines and mandatory requirements justified the

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** Ashok Bh…; Barun M…
- **Appellants:** Deputy Commissione…
- **Respondents:** Radha Madhav…; Rajeev Dh…

## Timeline

- **2020-10-22 — CIRP Init…**: The Adjudicating Authority initiated…
- **2020-11-12 — Public Annou…**: IRP issued Public…

## Legal provisions

- [Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 61 — Appeals and Appellate Authority](https://caseease.in/legal-provisions/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016/section-61)

---

This is a preview. The full structured summary, issues, precedents and source judgment are available on CaseEase - Legal Intelligence Simplified: https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/deputy-commissioner-utgst-daman-vs-rajeev-dhingra-ors-a08d65a3