# In the matter of Surender Kumar Singhal Vs. Vikram Bajaj, Resolution Professional for AMR Infrastructure Ltd. CA (AT) (Ins) No. 107 of 2021

> NCLAT judgment dated 2021-02-17. Citation: TCN-2021-NCLAT-00363. The Appellant, who was the highest bidder with a Resolution Plan approved by the Committee of…

- **Court:** NCLAT
- **Order date:** 17 Feb 2021
- **Citation:** TCN-2021-NCLAT-00363
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/surender-kumar-singhal-vs-vikram-bajaj-resolution-professional-for-amr-infrastru-e237a0fd

## Summary

### Background

The Appellant, who was the highest bidder with a Resolution Plan approved by the Committee of Creditors (COC), sought disposal of an application filed by the Resolution Professional before the Adjudicating Authority for approval of the Resolution Plan. The Resolution Professional filed an application under Section 31 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, on May 27, 2019, for approval of the Resolution Plan submitted by the Appellant, which had already been approved by the COC with the required majority. However, the Adjudicating Authority had not passed any order on it until the date of the appeal.

## Facts

The Appellant, Surender Kumar Singhal, was the highest bidder with a Resolution Plan approved by the Committee of Creditors (COC). The Resolution Professional, Vikram Bajaj, filed an application under Section 31 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, on May 27, 2019, seeking approval of the Appellant's Resolution Plan, which had already been approved by the COC with the requisite majority. However, the Adjudicating Authority had not passed any order on the application. The Appellant filed an appeal seeking disposal of the application. The Resolution Professional also expressed grievance regarding the delay. The court noted the delay in the disposal of the application by the Adjudicating Authority.

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the appeal at the instance …

**Ratio:** The court found that the appeal at the

…

**Reasoning:** The court reasoned that the Resolution Professional should have projected the grievance

…

**Interpretation:** The court interpreted that the responsibility to raise concerns about the delay

…

**Application:** The court applied this principle by stating that the Appellant's appeal was not

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** Bansi Lal…; Ashok Kumar…
- **Appellants:** Surender Kumar…
- **Respondents:** AMR Infrastructure…; Vikram…

## Timeline

- **2019-05-27 — Filing of App…**: The Resolution Professional filed an application under Section 31 of the Insolvency and…
- **2021-02-17 — Order Da…**: The court disposed of the appeal with a direction to the Adjudicating Authority to…

## Legal provisions

- [Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 31 — Approval of resolution plan](https://caseease.in/legal-provisions/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016/section-31)

---

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/surender-kumar-singhal-vs-vikram-bajaj-resolution-professional-for-amr-infrastru-e237a0fd