1. Heading of the Order

Supreme Court Order Dated: 20th January 2026
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar & Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. Vinod Chandran
Primary Case: SLP(C) No. 15410 of 2020
Connected Matters: C.A. Nos. 7042-7043/2021 & C.A. No. 7869/2021

Citation: Anil Kohli, Resolution Professional for Dunar Foods Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr., SLP(C) No. 15410 of 2020, Supreme Court of India, Order Dated 20.01.2026.

This is a procedural and dispositive order passed by the Supreme Court of India in a batch of interconnected matters, primarily concerning a Special Leave Petition arising from the Insolvency and Bankruptcy process. The order addresses an application for transposition of a party and subsequently disposes of the SLP based on the transposed party's election.

2. Related Laws and Legal Provisions

The order engages with the following statutory and procedural frameworks:

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC): The core subject matter originates from the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) of Dunar Foods Ltd. The role of the Resolution Professional and the rights of the Successful Resolution Applicant are central.
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC): The application for transposition of parties (Order I Rule 10) is governed by CPC principles, allowing a person to be added as a plaintiff/petitioner or defendant/respondent.
Supreme Court Rules, 2013: The proceedings involve various Interlocutory Applications (IAs) for exemption, condonation of delay, intervention, and permission to file additional documents, which are governed by the Court's internal rules.
Article 136 of the Constitution of India: The special leave jurisdiction under which the petition was filed.

3. Basic Order Details

Original Petitioner: Anil Kohli, the Resolution Professional for Dunar Foods Ltd. (Corporate Debtor).
Transposed Petitioner: Amit Gupta, the Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA).
Respondents: State of Maharashtra & Another.
Impugned Judgment: Bombay High Court order dated 09.11.2020 in Writ Petition No. 3396 of 2019.
Key Application Allowed: IA No. 70489/2025 for transposition.

4. Facts of the Case

The Resolution Professional (RP) for Dunar Foods Ltd. filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) challenging the Bombay High Court's order dated 09.11.2020.
The High Court's impugned order, while deciding the writ petition, had granted specific liberty (mentioned in its paragraph 32) to the Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA) to pursue a particular recourse.
Pending the SLP, an application (IA No. 70489/2025) was filed seeking the transposition of Amit Gupta, the SRA, as the petitioner in place of the RP. This was in line with a prior Supreme Court order dated 07.01.2025.
The SRA, upon being transposed, informed the Court of his decision regarding the liberty granted by the High Court.

5. Issue Before the Court

The primary issues were:

Whether the application for transposition of the Successful Resolution Applicant as the petitioner should be allowed.
Whether the Special Leave Petition required adjudication on merits once the transposed petitioner (SRA) decided to exercise the alternative liberty granted by the High Court.

6. Ratio Decidendi & Court's Reasoning

The Supreme Court's decision was based on the following logical steps:

Approval of Transposition: The Court first allowed the application for transposition (IA No. 70489/2025). This decision was not made in isolation but was "in view of the earlier order dated 07.01.2025 passed by this Court." This indicates that the question of the SRA's locus and interest in the litigation had already been recognized, making his transposition a logical procedural step to ensure the correct and most interested party was leading the challenge.
Election by the Transposed Party: The crux of the reasoning followed the transposition. The newly transposed petitioner (the SRA), through his counsel, elected to abide by the liberty granted by the High Court in paragraph 32 of the impugned order. This election was a conscious choice to pursue a remedy other than the one sought in the SLP.
Consequence of Election - Rendering SLP Infructuous: Once the SRA chose to avail the High Court's liberty, the very foundation for pursuing the current SLP was removed. The Supreme Court held that "in that view of the matter, the special leave petition is dismissed." The Court did not find it necessary to examine the merits of the case since the party in interest had opted for a different legal path.
Reservation of Substantial Question of Law: Importantly, while dismissing the SLP on this procedural and fact-specific ground, the Court explicitly stated, "The question of law, if any, is however left open for consideration in an appropriate case in future." This clarifies that the dismissal is not an affirmation of the High Court's legal reasoning but a disposal based on the petitioner's chosen course of action.

7. Core Principle of the Order

The core principle demonstrated in this order is the Supreme Court's pragmatic and party-centric approach to procedural management and its restraint from undertaking unnecessary constitutional adjudication. The Court prioritizes:

Propriety in Parties: Ensuring the litigant with the primary interest (the SRA) is at the forefront.
Judicial Economy: Dismissing a petition as infructuous when the petitioner voluntarily chooses an alternative remedy, thereby avoiding a redundant judicial determination.
Separation of Procedural and Substantive Justice: The order meticulously separates the procedural act of transposition and dismissal based on election from any substantive approval of the lower court's legal stance. By leaving all questions of law open, the Court protects the integrity of legal discourse for a future, more direct controversy.

8. Final Outcome and Directions

The Supreme Court passed the following clear directions:

In SLP(C) No. 15410/2020:
IA No. 70489/2025 for transposition was allowed. Amit Gupta, the Successful Resolution Applicant, was formally transposed as the petitioner.
The Special Leave Petition was dismissed as a consequence of the SRA's election to avail the liberty granted by the High Court.
The dismissal was expressly without prejudice to any substantive question of law, which remains open for future adjudication.
In Connected Civil Appeals (C.A. Nos. 7042-7043/2021 & 7869/2021):
The Court ordered these matters to be "Re-listed before a Bench in which one of us, Sanjay Kumar, J., is not a member." This indicates a recusal by Justice Sanjay Kumar, likely due to a potential conflict of interest or prior involvement in a related capacity, ensuring impartiality in those appeals.

Analysis: This order is a nuanced exercise of the Supreme Court's procedural authority. It is not a judgment on the merits of the IBC versus state law conflict that likely underpinned the High Court case. Instead, it is a decisive procedural ruling that respects the autonomy of the litigant (the SRA) to choose his legal remedy. The recusal order in the connected matters further underscores the Court's commitment to procedural fairness. The order effectively clears the procedural deck, allowing the SRA to pursue the liberty granted by the High Court, while ensuring that complex legal questions surrounding the resolution process are neither prejudged nor foreclosed, awaiting a more appropriate vehicle for resolution.

Bare Acts In English

The Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (HAMA)

The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC)

The Judges (Protection) Act, 1985

The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881

The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023

The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023