Case Details

Case Name: M/s Dharampal Premchand Ltd. vs Mr. Jitendra Bhandari & Ors

Parties: Appellant - M/s Dharampal Premchand Ltd. (Operational Creditor); Respondents - Mr. Jitendra Bhandari (Successful Resolution Applicant), Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra (Resolution Professional), Trimurti Foodtech Ltd (Corporate Debtor)

Court/Authority: National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1872 of 2025

Date of Judgment: 25th May, 2026

Impugned Order: Dated 16.09.2025 passed by NCLT Mumbai Bench-V in I.A. No. 4588 of 2024 in C.P. (IB) No. 1139(MB)/2020

Period of Dispute: Arising from Contract Manufacturing Agreement dated 20.08.2014, termination dated 20.12.2017, and CIRP commencement on 11.08.2021

Parties Involved

Petitioner/Appellant: M/s Dharampal Premchand Ltd., through its Director Shashi Kumar Maheshwari, operating in FMCG sector with diversified manufacturing including fruit pulp-based jelly products and fruit bars

Respondent No. 1: Mr. Jitendra Bhandari, Successful Resolution Applicant

Respondent No. 2: Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, Resolution Professional of Trimurti Foodtech Private Limited

Respondent No. 3: Trimurti Foodtech Ltd (Corporate Debtor), through its Managing Director Shri Atul Dattatraya Banginwar, engaged in food processing and manufacturing

Financial Creditors (Initiated CIRP): Sandhya Dinesh Sancheti & Ors

Legal Representatives: Mr. Brajesh Kumar and Mr. Saurav Kumar for Appellant; Mr. Amir Arsiwala and Ms. Neha Arya for Respondents

Issues / Allegations / Violations

  • Appellant claimed operational debt of ₹6,81,21,070 arising from Contract Manufacturing and Packaging Agreement dated 20.08.2014 with Corporate Debtor
  • Appellant provided financial assistance of approximately ₹6.25 Crores and leased machinery worth ₹3.60 Crores to Corporate Debtor
  • Appellant terminated agreement on 20.12.2017 citing non-adherence by Corporate Debtor
  • Resolution Professional treated Appellant's claim as "contingent" based on alleged counterclaim of ₹55.68 Crores by Corporate Debtor for losses due to non-fulfillment of production commitments
  • Alleged violation of Section 24(3)(c) of IBC - failure to issue notice of CoC meetings to operational creditor with dues above statutory threshold
  • Alleged wrongful treatment of leased machinery (owned by Appellant) as assets of Corporate Debtor during CIRP
  • Alleged procedural irregularities, suppression of material facts from CoC, and collusion between RP and Successful Resolution Applicant

Findings & Observations

  • Tribunal found Appellant's claim was never finally admitted as undisputed operational debt and remained contingent due to reciprocal disputes
  • Resolution Professional was justified in classifying claim as contingent pending adjudication of disputes between parties
  • Section 24(3)(c) not applicable since Appellant was not treated as admitted operational creditor entitled to notice
  • Appellant was aware of contingent classification since April 2022 but never challenged it during CIRP period
  • No material fraud, suppression, or collusion established in the CIRP process
  • Resolution Professional performed claim verification exercise, not final adjudication of contractual disputes
  • Commercial decisions taken during CIRP cannot be reopened without showing material prejudice
  • Machinery ownership disputes do not invalidate approved Resolution Plan

Penalties / Settlements / Directions

  • No monetary penalties imposed on any party
  • Resolution Plan approved by NCLT on 31.03.2023 treated Appellant as contingent operational creditor pending arbitration outcome
  • Monitoring Committee dissolved on 29.08.2024 after successful implementation of Resolution Plan
  • Arbitration proceedings initiated by Respondent No. 1 on 19.08.2023 before Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench under Sections 11(5) and 11(6) of Arbitration Act

Corrective Actions & Future Obligations

  • Disputes between parties to be resolved through arbitration proceedings as per contractual agreement
  • Appellant may pursue separate remedies regarding ownership of leased machinery
  • No ongoing compliance measures or governance reforms ordered as Resolution Plan already implemented

Final Ruling & Enforcement

  • NCLAT dismissed the Appeal and upheld the Impugned Order dated 16.09.2025
  • No interference with approved and implemented Resolution Plan
  • No order as to costs
  • Pending I.A.s closed
  • Tribunal emphasized finality of insolvency process and limited jurisdiction to interfere with implemented resolution plans