# In the matter of Mr. Kaushal Ramesh Mehta Vs. Metallica Industries Ltd. & Ors. CA(AT)(Ins) No. 1437-1438 of 2019

> NCLAT judgment dated 2020-01-02. Citation: TCN-2020-NCLAT-00611. The case involves two appeals, Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1437 of 2019 and Company…

- **Court:** NCLAT
- **Order date:** 2 Jan 2020
- **Citation:** TCN-2020-NCLAT-00611
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/mr-kaushal-ramesh-mehta-vs-metallica-industries-ltd-ors-ca-6407f07c

## Summary

### Background

The case involves two appeals, Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1437 of 2019 and Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1438 of 2019, filed by Mr. Kaushal Ramesh Mehta and Mr. Pratik Ramesh Mehta respectively, against Metallica Industries Ltd. & Ors. The appellants had an arrangement/agreement with the 'Corporate Debtor' for the purchase of a part of the Gala (Project), which was rejected by the 'Resolution Professional'. The 'Resolution Professional' did not accept them as 'Secured Financial Creditor'. The appeals challenged the order dated 16th October, 2019 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Mumbai Bench, Mumbai, which approved the 'Resolution Plan' with 85.89% voting share of the 'Committee of Creditors'.

## Facts

Mr. Kaushal Ramesh Mehta and Mr. Pratik Ramesh Mehta filed separate appeals against Metallica Industries Ltd. & Ors. These appeals, numbered 1437 and 1438 of 2019 respectively, concern an arrangement/agreement the appellants had with the 'Corporate Debtor' for purchasing part of the Gala (Project). This arrangement was rejected by the 'Resolution Professional', who also declined to recognize the appellants as 'Secured Financial Creditors'. The appeals challenged an order dated October 16, 2019, issued by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai Bench, which approved a 'Resolution Plan' with 85.89% approval from the 'Committee of Creditors'. The core issue revolves around the appellants' challenge to the approved resolution plan and whether they can

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the Appellant(s) have established grounds to challenge the approved 'Resolution Plan' under …

**Ratio:** Section 61(3) of the 'I&B Code' specifies the grounds on which an approved resolution

…

**Reasoning:** The court determined that the Appellant(s) failed to demonstrate any of the grounds

…

**Interpretation:** Section 61(3) provides a limited scope for challenging an approved resolution

…

**Application:** Since the Appellant(s) could not substantiate any of the grounds under Section

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** S.J. Mukhop…; Bansi Lal…
- **Appellants:** Kaushal Ramesh…
- **Respondents:** Metallica…

## Timeline

- **2019-10-16 — Order by Adjudicating…**: The Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Mumbai Bench, passed an order…
- **2020-01-02 — Appellant's Ar…**: According to the Appellant(s), they had an arrangement/agreement with the 'Corporate…

## 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/mr-kaushal-ramesh-mehta-vs-metallica-industries-ltd-ors-ca-6407f07c