# In the matter of Rakesh Ranjan vs. Fanendra Harakchand Munot & Anr.

> NCLAT judgment dated 2023-12-04. Citation: TCN-2023-NCLAT-00059. The appeal was filed against the order dated 18th July 2023 passed by the National Company…

- **Court:** NCLAT
- **Order date:** 4 Dec 2023
- **Citation:** TCN-2023-NCLAT-00059
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/rakesh-ranjan-vs-fanendra-harakchand-munot-anr-18f395a9

## Summary

### Background

The appeal was filed against the order dated 18th July 2023 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, Court-V, which allowed I.A. No. 2724 of 2022 filed by the Resolution Professional for approval of the Resolution Plan. The Resolution Plan submitted by the Successful Resolution Applicant was approved. The Appellant, who had also submitted a Resolution Plan, filed this appeal because their plan was not considered due to their failure to submit the Bank Guarantee of Rs. 50 Lakhs as per RFRP.

## Facts

Rakesh Ranjan, the Appellant, filed an appeal against an order passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai Bench, which approved a Resolution Plan submitted by a Successful Resolution Applicant. The Appellant's own Resolution Plan was not considered because he failed to submit a Bank Guarantee of Rs. 50 Lakhs as required by the Request for Resolution Plan (RFRP). The Appellant argued that the Bank Guarantee requirement was contrary to Regulation 36B of the CIRP Regulations. The Respondents argued that the RFRP specifically required the Bank Guarantee and the Appellant never challenged this condition. The Resolution Professional stated that the Appellant had even written to Canara Bank to submit the Bank Guarantee but only raised the issue after his plan

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the requirement of submitting a Bank Guarantee of Rs. 50 Lakhs along with the resolution …

**Ratio:** Regulation 36B (4) states that the request for resolution plans shall not require any

…

**Reasoning:** The court reasoned that the RFRP contained a condition for a Bank Guarantee, and

…

**Interpretation:** The interpretation of Regulation 36B (4) and (4A) suggests that while

…

**Application:** The court applied this reasoning to the fact that the RFRP required a Bank

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** Ashok Bh…; Barun M…; +1 more
- **Appellants:** Rakesh R…
- **Respondents:** Fanendra Harakchan…
- **Advocates:** Akshay…; Tabrez Ma…; +6 more

## Timeline

- **2023-07-18 — Order by…**: The National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, Court-V passed an order allowing I.A.…
- **2022-02-14 — Appellant's Letter to…**: The Appellant wrote a letter to Canara Bank stating that it shall submit a Bank Guarantee…

---

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/rakesh-ranjan-vs-fanendra-harakchand-munot-anr-18f395a9