# In the matter of Dr. Arabinda Kumar Rath vs. Siba Kumar Mohapatra

> NCLAT judgment dated 2025-05-07. Citation: TCN-2025-NCLAT-00048. The appeal arises from an order dated 09.08.2023 passed by the Adjudicating Authority…

- **Court:** NCLAT
- **Order date:** 7 May 2025
- **Citation:** TCN-2025-NCLAT-00048
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/dr-arabinda-kumar-rath-vs-siba-kumar-mohapatra-04a66d8d

## Summary

### Background

The appeal arises from an order dated 09.08.2023 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi Bench-II) in I.A. No. 5617/ND/2022 in C.P. (IB) No. 1243(ND)/2018. The Adjudicating Authority approved the Resolution Plan of the Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA) and dismissed the objections raised by the erstwhile management of the Corporate Debtor. The Appellant, a member of the suspended Board of Director of the Corporate Debtor, preferred the present appeal. The Corporate Debtor, Medirad Tech India Ltd., was admitted into CIRP following the admission of a Section 7 application filed by India SME Assets Reconstruction Company Ltd. (ISARC) on 08.12.2021. The Interim Resolution Professional, later confirmed as the Resolution

…

## Facts

Medirad Tech India Ltd. was admitted into CIRP following a Section 7 application by India SME Assets Reconstruction Company Ltd. (ISARC) on 08.12.2021. The Resolution Professional (RP) formed a Committee of Creditors (CoC) with Technology Development Board (TDB) and ISARC. The RP received two resolution plans, and Asian Institute of Oncology Pvt. Ltd. (AIOPL) was selected as the Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA). The Adjudicating Authority approved the SRA's resolution plan, leading to an appeal by a member of the suspended Board of Directors. The Appellant claimed the RP favored secured Financial Creditors by inflating their claims and failed to disclose crucial information about the leasehold land. The Appellant also alleged that the valuation of the Corporate

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the RP conducted the CIRP in a malafide …

**Ratio:** The commercial wisdom of the CoC is paramount, and the Adjudicating Authority's role is

…

**Reasoning:** The NCLAT found no evidence of malafide intent on the part of the RP. The CoC, exercising

…

**Interpretation:** The IBC emphasizes the CoC's autonomy in decision-making, limiting judicial

…

**Application:** The Appellant's allegations of malafide conduct were not substantiated, and the

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** Ashok Bh…; Barun M…
- **Appellants:** ARABINDA KUMAR…
- **Respondents:** Medirad Tech…; Sh. Siba Kumar…
- **Advocates:** Tishampat…; Shubhanshu…; +5 more

## Timeline

- **2018-01-01 — C.P. (IB) No.…**: Case number assigned to the…
- **2021-12-08 — Admission in…**: Medirad Tech India Ltd. admitted into Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP)…

## 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/dr-arabinda-kumar-rath-vs-siba-kumar-mohapatra-04a66d8d