# In the matter of Mathuraprasad C Pandey & Ors. vs. RP of M.V. Omni Projects (India) Ltd., Company Appeal (AT)(Ins) No.201-2021 > NCLAT judgment dated 2022-12-14. Citation: TCN-2022-NCLAT-00030. The case involves two appeals, Company Appeal (AT)(Ins) No.201/2021 and Company Appeal… - **Court:** NCLAT - **Order date:** 14 Dec 2022 - **Citation:** TCN-2022-NCLAT-00030 - **Category:** IBC - **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/mathuraprasad-c-pandey-ors-vs-rp-of-mv-omni-projects-33a32117 ## Summary ### Background The case involves two appeals, Company Appeal (AT)(Ins) No.201/2021 and Company Appeal (AT)(Ins) No.266/2021, both arising from the same order dated 28.01.2021 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Ahmedabad Bench, in IA No.846/2020 in CP (IB) No.404/2019. The NCLT had approved a Resolution Plan for the Corporate Debtor, M/s MV Omni Projects (India) Ltd, but with a modification. Company Appeal (AT)(Ins) No.201/2021 was filed by the successful resolution applicant, Mathuraprasad C Pandey, challenging the modification made by the NCLT. Company Appeal (AT)(Ins) No.266/2021 was filed by Nandish Patel, an ex-employee and operational creditor of the Corporate Debtor, challenging the approval of the Resolution Plan itself, alleging fraud and suppression of … ## Facts The Corporate Debtor, M/s MV Omni Projects (India) Ltd, underwent Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) initiated by an operational creditor, Nandish Patel, who was also an ex-employee. The CIRP was initiated based on an application under Section 9 of the IBC, admitted in August 2019. The NCLT approved a Resolution Plan submitted by Mathuraprasad C Pandey, who was a promoter of the Corporate Debtor, but modified it. Nandish Patel challenged the approval of the Resolution Plan, alleging that the promoters fraudulently misrepresented the Corporate Debtor as an MSME to gain advantages under the IBC and suppressed material facts, including fraudulent transactions and diversion of funds. He claimed the promoters obtained an Udyog Aadhar Acknowledgement through … ## Issues and analysis ### Issue 1: Whether the NCLT exceeded its jurisdiction by modifying the Resolution Plan approved by the … **Ratio:** The Adjudicating Authority's mandate is either to approve or reject a resolution plan … **Reasoning:** The NCLAT reasoned that Section 31 of the IBC mandates the Adjudicating Authority to … **Interpretation:** Section 31 of the IBC provides a clear framework for the approval of resolution … **Application:** In this case, the NCLAT applied the principle that the Adjudicating Authority's … ## Parties - **Judges:** Rakesh…; Ashok Kumar… - **Appellants:** Mathuraprasad C… - **Respondents:** M/s MV Omni…; Partiv P… ## Timeline - **2019-08-01 — CIRP Init…**: Application under Section 9 of IBC admitted, initiating CIRP against M/s MV Omni Projects… - **2020-01-20 — Appointment of…**: Mr. Parthiv Parikh appointed as Resolution… ## Legal provisions - [Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 9 — Application for initiation of corporate insolvency…](https://caseease.in/legal-provisions/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016/section-9) --- 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/mathuraprasad-c-pandey-ors-vs-rp-of-mv-omni-projects-33a32117