# In the matter of Hari Vitthal Mission vs. Ravi Sethia & Ors.

> NCLAT judgment dated 2025-05-14. Citation: TCN-2025-NCLAT-00039. The appeal was filed by Hari Vitthal Mission, a financial creditor of Suasth Healthcare…

- **Court:** NCLAT
- **Order date:** 14 May 2025
- **Citation:** TCN-2025-NCLAT-00039
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/hari-vitthal-mission-vs-ravi-sethia-ors-5a49c6f6

## Summary

### Background

The appeal was filed by Hari Vitthal Mission, a financial creditor of Suasth Healthcare Foundation (Corporate Debtor), challenging the order dated 18.12.2023 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Kolkata Bench, which approved a resolution plan for the Corporate Debtor. The appellant's claim was initially admitted, but later they were classified as a related party, leading to a NIL allocation in the resolution plan. The appellant argued that this NIL allocation violated Section 30(2) and Section 53 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), as operational creditors were being paid while they, as an unsecured financial creditor, received nothing. The appellant also contended that the resolution professional and the CoC acted in collusion with the

…

## Facts

Hari Vitthal Mission, a financial creditor of Suasth Healthcare Foundation, filed an appeal against the approval of a resolution plan by the NCLT, Kolkata. The CIRP was initiated on 31.08.2021. The appellant's claim of Rs. 62,16,33,563 was initially admitted, but later the appellant was classified as a related party. The resolution plan, jointly submitted by Nishkala Healthcare Private Limited and Ujin Pharma Chem, allocated NIL payment to the appellant. The appellant challenged this, arguing it violated Section 30(2) and Section 53 of the IBC, as operational creditors were being paid while the appellant received nothing. The NCLT initially directed the CoC to reconsider the distribution, but later approved the plan. The CoC subsequently allocated Rs. 10 lakhs to the

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the related party can be differentiated in treatment vis-à-vis other Creditor in the …

**Ratio:** The Code permits differential treatment

…

**Reasoning:** The Resolution Plan does not discriminate against the Appellant due to its classification

…

**Interpretation:** The commercial wisdom of the CoC is paramount and cannot be interfered with by

…

**Application:** The Appellant's allegations are legally not tenable because all unsecured

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** Rakesh Kuma…; Naresh Sa…; +1 more
- **Appellants:** Hari Vitthal…
- **Respondents:** Suasth Health…; Ravi Se…

## Timeline

- **2021-08-31 — CIRP Init…**: Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) was initiated against Suasth Healthcare…
- **2021-09-15 — Claim Subm…**: Appellant submitted…

## 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/hari-vitthal-mission-vs-ravi-sethia-ors-5a49c6f6