# In the matter of Dream Procon Private Limited

> NCLT judgment dated 2025-11-03. Citation: TCN-2025-NCLT-01718. The case involves an application filed by Mr. Rajiv Kumar, representing 212 homebuyers, seeking…

- **Court:** NCLT
- **Order date:** 3 Nov 2025
- **Citation:** TCN-2025-NCLT-01718
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclt-new-delhi/dream-procon-private-limited-d8d0e5d2

## Summary

### Background

The case involves an application filed by Mr. Rajiv Kumar, representing 212 homebuyers, seeking the replacement of the existing Resolution Professional (RP), Mr. Arunava Sikdar, with Mr. Sunil Kumar Agrawal, under Section 27 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Financial Creditor, Ms. Priyanshi Arora, had previously filed an application under Section 7 of the IBC against the Corporate Debtor, M/s. Dream Procon Private Limited, which was admitted, and a moratorium was declared. Mr. Manish Gupta was appointed as the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP).

## Facts

Mr. Rajiv Kumar, representing 212 homebuyers, filed an application seeking the replacement of the existing Resolution Professional (RP), Mr. Arunava Sikdar.

Ms. Priyanshi Arora, a Financial Creditor, had previously initiated insolvency proceedings against M/s. Dream Procon Private Limited, the Corporate Debtor.

The application under Section 7 filed by Ms. Priyanshi Arora was admitted, and a moratorium was declared.

Mr. Manish Gupta was initially appointed as the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP).

The applicants claimed to have more than 40% voting share in the CoC and requested the RP to place the resolution for his replacement before the CoC.

The Resolution Professional (RP) did not place the proposed resolution before the CoC for voting.

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the Resolution Professional was obligated to place the resolution for his replacement …

**Ratio:** Regulation 18 of the CIRP Regulations, 2016, mandates that a Resolution Professional

…

**Reasoning:** The Adjudicating Authority found that the applicants, comprising 212 homebuyers, had a

…

**Interpretation:** The Adjudicating Authority interpreted Regulation 18 to mean that the

…

**Application:** The Adjudicating Authority directed the Resolution Professional to conduct a

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** BACHU VENKAT…; Sanjeev R…
- **Appellants:** Priyanshi…; Rajiv K…
- **Respondents:** Dream Procon…; ArunavaS…; +2 more
- **Other parties:** Manish…; Sunil Kumar…; +1 more
- **Advocates:** Mayank Kshi…; Pavani…; +2 more

## Timeline

- **2019-12-23 — Second Meetin…**: The IRP convened the Second Meeting of the CoC when it was resolved to appoint Mr. Nilesh…
- **2020-01-16 — Appointment of Nilesh…**: This Adjudicating Authority vide Order dated 16.01.2020, as per Section 16(5) of the Code…

## Legal provisions

- [Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 27 — Replacement of resolution professional by…](https://caseease.in/legal-provisions/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016/section-27)

---

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/nclt-new-delhi/dream-procon-private-limited-d8d0e5d2