# In the matter of Rashidbhai Ismail Tharadra & 2 Ors. Vs. Raj Oil Mills Ltd. & Anr. CA (AT) No. 297-2018

> NCLAT judgment dated 8 Aug 2018. Citation: TCN-2018-NCLAT-00159. The case involves an appeal against an order dated April 19, 2018, passed by the Adjudicating…

- **Court:** NCLAT
- **Order date:** 8 Aug 2018
- **Citation:** TCN-2018-NCLAT-00159
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/rashidbhai-ismail-tharadra-2-ors-vs-raj-oil-mills-ltd-anr-ca-5707bf6a

## Summary

### Background

The case involves an appeal against an order dated April 19, 2018, passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal) Mumbai Bench, which approved a resolution plan that had been previously approved by the Committee of Creditors. The appellant is the promoter of Raj Oil Mills Ltd. (Corporate Debtor) and also the Personal Guarantor in favor of the Financial Creditors. The appellant's grievance is against the approval of the resolution plan.

## Facts

Rashidbhai Ismail Tharadra, the appellant, is the promoter of Raj Oil Mills Ltd., the corporate debtor, and also acts as a personal guarantor for the financial creditors. The Adjudicating Authority (NCLT Mumbai Bench) approved a resolution plan that was previously approved by the Committee of Creditors. The appellant filed an appeal against this approval, arguing that the personal guarantor was not heard during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). The appellant was present at the meeting of the Committee of Creditors. The respondent argued that they would have realized the total amount from the Resolution Applicant. The appellant also has proceedings against them under the SARFESI Act, 2002, pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal.

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the Personal Guarantor should have been heard during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution …

**Ratio:** There is no legal requirement to hear the Personal Guarantor in a Corporate Insolvency

…

**Reasoning:** The appellate tribunal reasoned that the Appellant, being the Promoter, was present in

…

**Interpretation:** The interpretation is that the presence of the promoter, who is also the

…

**Application:** Since the Appellant was present in the Committee of Creditors' meeting, the

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** S.J. Mukhop…; Bansi Lal…
- **Appellants:** Rashidbhai Ismail…
- **Respondents:** Raj Oil Mil…; Raj Oil Mills…
- **Advocates:** Rahul Ch…; Aaditya A.…; +9 more

## Timeline

- **2018-04-19 — Impugned…**: The Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal) Mumbai Bench passed an order…
- **2018-08-08 — Order Da…**: The Appellant is the Promoter of ‘Raj Oil Mills Ltd.' (Corporate Debtor) and is also the…

## Legal provisions

- [Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 30(2) — Submission of resolution plan](https://caseease.in/legal-provisions/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016/section-30)

---

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/rashidbhai-ismail-tharadra-2-ors-vs-raj-oil-mills-ltd-anr-ca-5707bf6a