# In the matter of Rahul Aneja Vs. Sushant Aneja & Anr. CA(AT)(Ins) No. 699 of 2019

> NCLAT judgment dated 2020-01-16. Citation: TCN-2020-NCLAT-00531. The case involves an appeal against an Impugned Order approving a Resolution Plan for the…

- **Court:** NCLAT
- **Order date:** 16 Jan 2020
- **Citation:** TCN-2020-NCLAT-00531
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/rahul-aneja-vs-sushant-aneja-anr-ca-1a49da76

## Summary

### Background

The case involves an appeal against an Impugned Order approving a Resolution Plan for the Corporate Debtor, J.D. Aneja Edibles Pvt. Ltd., which is a Micro, Small and Medium Enterprise (MSME). The Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) was initiated by the Respondents. The Appellant, along with his wife, tendered a Resolution Plan during the CIRP. The Adjudicating Authority (NCLT, Jaipur Bench) approved the plan with an amendment in paragraph-31(i), directing that dissenting Financial Creditors (FC), even if related parties, should be paid the principal amount due as agreed before. The Appellant claims the Resolution Applicant never agreed to such an amendment, rendering the plan unviable.

## Facts

The Respondents initiated a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the Corporate Debtor, J.D. Aneja Edibles Pvt. Ltd. The Appellant, along with his wife, submitted a Resolution Plan during the CIRP. The Adjudicating Authority (NCLT, Jaipur Bench) approved the Resolution Plan but included an amendment in paragraph-31(i) of the Impugned Order, which stipulated that dissenting Financial Creditors (FC), even if related parties, must be paid the principal amount due as agreed before. The Appellant claims that the Resolution Applicant never agreed to this amendment before the learned Tribunal, and this amendment makes the Resolution Plan unviable. The Appellant filed an appeal against the Impugned Order. The Corporate Debtor is a Micro, Small and Medium

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the Appellant is entitled to relief from the amendment made by the Adjudicating Authority …

**Ratio:** A party cannot back out of a statement made before the Adjudicating Authority to get

…

**Reasoning:** The court reasoned that since the Adjudicating Authority had already issued a direction

…

**Interpretation:** This principle emphasizes the importance of upholding the decisions and

…

**Application:** The court applied this principle by directing the Appellant to file a

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** A.I.S. C…; Kanthi Na…; +1 more
- **Appellants:** Rahul A…
- **Respondents:** J.D. Aneja…; Sushant…

## Timeline

- **2020-01-16 — Hearing…**: The court heard the learned Counsel…
- **2020-01-31 — Appearance before…**: Parties are directed to appear before the Adjudicating Authority, and the Appellant…

---

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/rahul-aneja-vs-sushant-aneja-anr-ca-1a49da76