Mahesh Ganpat Angane & Ors. vs Dr. Mamta Binani & Ors.

Court
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
Case type
Company Appeal(AT)(Ins)
Decided on
08-04-2026
<div> <br /> <b>NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL </b><br /> <b>PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI </b><br /> <b> </b><br /> <b>Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 578 of 2026 &amp; </b><br /> <b>I.A. No. 2237, 2143 of 2026 </b><br /> <b> </b><br /> <b>IN THE MATTER OF: </b> <b> </b><br /> <b>Mahesh Ganpat Angane &amp; Ors. </b> <b> …Appellant(s) </b><br /> <b> </b><br /> <b>Versus </b><br /> <b> </b><br /> <b> </b><br /> <b>Dr. Mamta Binani and Anr. </b> <b>…Respondent(s) </b><br /> <b> </b><br /> <b>Present: </b> <b> </b><br /> <b>For Appellant </b> <b>: </b> <b>Mr. Mayank Kshirsagar, Ms. Pavani Verma, </b><br /> <b>Advocates </b><br /> <b> </b><br /> <b>For Respondents </b> <b>: </b> <b>Mr. Ananya Pratap Singh, Ms. Gyanika Kocchar, </b><br /> <b>Advocates for R1 </b><br /> <b> </b><br /> <b> </b><br /> <b> </b><br /> <b> </b><br /> <b> </b><br /> <b> </b><br /> <b>With </b><br /> <b>Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 580 of 2026 </b><br /> <b> </b><br /> <b>IN THE MATTER OF: </b> <b> </b><br /> <b>Vijay Vaman Panchal &amp; Ors. </b> <b> …Appellant(s) </b><br /> <b> </b><br /> <b>Versus </b><br /> <b> </b><br /> <b> </b><br /> <b>Dr. Mamta Binani &amp; Anr. </b> <b>…Respondent(s) </b><br /> <b> </b><br /> <b>Present: </b> <b> </b><br /> <b>For Appellant </b> <b>: </b> <b>Mr. Mayank Kshirsagar, Ms. Pavani Verma, </b><br /> <b>Advocates </b><br /> <b> </b><br /> <b>For Respondents </b> <b>: </b> <b>Mr. Ananya Pratap Singh, Ms. Gyanika Kocchar, </b><br /> <b>Advocates for R1 </b><br /> <b> </b><br /> <b> </b><br /> <b> </b><br /> <b>O R D E R </b><br /> <b>(Hybrid Mode) </b><br /> <b> </b><br /> <b>08.04.2026</b> <b>I.A. No. 2237 of 2026</b> This is an Application praying for <br /> condonation of 8 days delay in filing the Appeal. <br /> 2. The delay is within condonable period and we find sufficient cause has <br /> been shown in Paragraph 2(d) and 2(e). <br /> <br /><br /> <br /> <br /> 3. <b>Delay condoned </b><br /> <b>I.A. No. 2143 of 2026</b> This is an Application praying for condonation of 43 <br /> day delay in refiling the Appeal. <br /> 3. The ground taken in the Application is that the Appellants are from <br /> out of stations and some of the documents required are not readily available <br /> with the Counsel and Appellant had to be contacted and it took some time. <br /> 4. Sufficient cause is shown. <br /> 5. <b>Refiling delay condoned</b> . <br /> <b>Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 578 &amp; 580 of 2026</b> These two Appeals have <br /> been filed by the ex-employees of the Corporate Debtor challenging the order <br /> dated 15/12/2025 passed by National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai <br /> Bench-I in IA (IBC) (Plan) 65 of 2024. <br /> 2. By the impugned order, the Adjudicating Authority has allowed the <br /> Application and approved the Resolution Plan. Ld. Counsel for Appellant has <br /> very fairly pointed out to the court that against the same order, certain other <br /> employees have filed the Appeal, Comp App (AT) (Ins) 241 of 2026 <br /> <b>Mohammed Ismail Ansari Vs. Dr. Mamta Binani &amp; Ors</b> , where this <br /> tribunal has already, after considering the submission, had dismissed the <br /> Appeal. <br /> 3. Ld. Counsel for Respondent submitted that this tribunal has <br /> considered all submissions raised by the Appellants and upheld the order <br /> and hence this Appeal also need to be decided in terms of the said order. <br /> 4. Ld. Counsel for Appellant submitted that in the judgement of this <br /> tribunal dated 30/03/2026, the Respondents have not correctly construed <br /> <b><i>2</i></b> <b><i> of </i></b> <b><i>4</i></b> <b><i> </i></b><br /> <b><i> </i></b><br /> <b><i> </i></b><br /> <b><i> </i></b><br /> <br /><br /> <br /> <br /> the order dated 05/12/2025 passed by the Adjudicating Authority in the <br /> proceeding and the payment to the Appellant is not fair and equitable which <br /> is required under Section 30 [2] (b). <br /> 5. We have considered submissions of the Appellant and perused the <br /> record. <br /> 6. The judgement of this Tribunal dated 03/03/2026 has noticed the <br /> order dated 05/12/2025 and has also noticed the details of the payments, <br /> as contained in Paragraph 7.8 of the Appeal and it was found that the <br /> payment made to the employees was more than that paid to the unsecured <br /> financial creditor, who were receiving only 0.98% of their claim. <br /> 7. It is well settled that approval of the Resolution Plan can be interfered <br /> by the Adjudicating Authority when there is a violation of Provision of <br /> Section 30 [2] (b). The entitlement of operational creditor is provided in <br /> Section 30 [2] (b) and present, it is not shown that there is any violation of <br /> the said provision. <br /> 8. We thus are of the view that, we having already upheld the order <br /> dated 05/12/2025, this Appeal also need to be decided in terms of the said <br /> order. <br /> 9. Following the earlier judgement dated 03/03/2026, <b>both the Appeals </b><br /> <b>are dismissed</b> . <br /> 10. Ld. Counsel for Appellant has submitted that order dated 05/12/2025 <br /> provided that minimum entitlement of 12 month salary and the Resolution <br /> Plan does not provide for minimum 12 month salary. <br /> <br /> <b><i>3</i></b> <b><i> of </i></b> <b><i>4</i></b> <b><i> </i></b><br /> <b><i> </i></b><br /> <b><i> </i></b><br /> <b><i> </i></b><br /> <br /><br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> 11. We having already noticed the order and interpreted the same, we are <br /> unable to take any different. <br /> <br /> <br /> <b>[Justice Ashok Bhushan] </b><br /> <b>Chairperson </b><br /> <b> </b><br /> <b> </b><br /> <b>[Indevar Pandey] </b><br /> <b>Member (Technical) </b><br /> <i>Prerana/md</i> <br /> <br /> <b><i>4</i></b> <b><i> of </i></b> <b><i>4</i></b> <b><i> </i></b><br /> <b><i> </i></b><br /> <b><i> </i></b><br /> <b><i> </i></b><br /> </div>