Canara Bank vs P.R Commerce Private Limited

Per Cmde Siddharth Mishra, Member (Technical):

The instant application has been preferred by Anil Agarwal, Resolution Professional of P R Commerce Private Limited, the corporate debtor under Section 30(6) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, for Brevity “I&B Code” seeking for final approval of the resolution plan submitted by “Mangalkari ASSET Investment AIF”, who has been declared as the Successful Resolution Applicant, hereinafter referred to as “SRA”, by the Committee of Creditors, hereinafter referred to as “CoC”, by 100% majority voting shares at their 12^th meetings convened on 14.08.2025.

The Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP”) of P.R. Commerce Private Limited (“Corporate Debtor”) commenced on 27.11.2024 upon admission of C.P. (IB) No. 57/KB/2023 filed by Canara Bank, Financial Creditor, under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“Code”) by this Adjudicating Authority. The Committee of Creditors (“CoC”) was thereafter constituted, comprising three secured Financial Creditors, whose aggregate admitted claims stand at Rs. 2,22,32,37,354.82, with no admitted claims of Operational Creditors (including statutory dues or workmen / employees) and no unsecured Financial Creditors.

In accordance with the statutory timelines, the Resolution Professional (“RP”) published Form G on 25.01.2025 inviting Expressions of Interest, and, on the request of interested parties and with the approval of the CoC in its 3rd meeting held on 15.02.2025, republished Form G on 18.02.2025 with extended timelines, resulting in receipt of two EOIs.

Subsequently, one Prospective Resolution Applicant withdrew from the process, leaving Mangalkari Asset Investment AIF as the sole Prospective Resolution Applicant, which submitted its Resolution Plan within the extended CIRP period. Given that the initial 180 days of CIRP were to expire on 26.05.2025, the CoC, in its 6th meeting, resolved with 82.91% voting share to seek extension of the CIRP by 90 days; such extension was granted by this Tribunal by order dated 13.06.2025.

Thereafter, through successive CoC meetings, the Resolution Plan submitted by Mangalkari Asset Investment AIF was negotiated, evaluated and refined, including deliberations on the manner of distribution of the plan proceeds amongst the secured Financial Creditors. The CoC ultimately resolved, with 89.94% voting share, that distributions under the plan would be made to the secured Financial Creditors on the basis of their respective security interests. The final Resolution Plan contemplates a total payment of Rs. 4.16 crores (less actual CIRP costs) to the secured Financial Creditors, in four tranches over a period of 180 days from the date of approval of the plan by this Tribunal, with CIRP costs being paid in full and in priority.

At the 12th CoC meeting convened on 14.08.2025, the Resolution Plan of Mangalkari Asset Investment AIF was placed for consideration and, after detailed discussions, was approved with 100% voting share of the CoC, whereupon Mangalkari Asset Investment AIF was declared the Successful Resolution Applicant (“SRA”). In pursuance thereof, the RP issued a Letter of Intent (“LoI”) on 16.08.2025, which was accepted by the SRA on 20.08.2025, and performance security of Rs. 41.60 lakhs, being 10% of the total plan value of Rs. 4.16 crores was furnished by way of bank transfer into the CIRP account of the Corporate Debtor within the stipulated period. The present application under Section 30(6) of the Code has been filed on 23.08.2025 seeking approval of the said Resolution Plan, within the extended CIRP period of 270 days, which expired on 24.08.2025.

The Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process of P.R. Commerce Private Limited commenced upon admission of C.P. (IB) No. 57/KB/2023 filed by Canara Bank, Financial Creditor, under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. By order dated 27.11.2024, this Adjudicating Authority was pleased to admit the petition and declare the commencement of CIRP of the Corporate Debtor.

Upon admission, Mr. Anil Agarwal (IBBI Registration No. IBBI/IPA-001/IP-P00270/2017-2018/10514) was appointed as the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) in terms of Section 16 of the Code. Thereafter, the IRP carried out all statutory steps including issuance of Public Announcement, verification and collation of claims, and constitution of the Committee of Creditors.

The First Meeting of the Committee of Creditors was convened on 26.12.2024, during which the CoC comprising secured Financial Creditors unanimously resolved, with 100% voting share, to confirm and appoint Mr. Anil Agarwal as the Resolution Professional (RP) for conducting the CIRP of the Corporate Debtor. The total admitted claims of the secured Financial Creditors aggregate to Rs. 2,22,32,37,354.82, and no claims were received from Operational Creditors, workmen, employees, or unsecured Financial Creditors.

The CIRP therefore commenced in accordance with the Code on 27.11.2024, with the IRP duly confirmed as the RP by the CoC in its first meeting, and the RP thereafter proceeded to conduct the CIRP in terms of Sections 18, 20, 23 and other relevant provisions of the Code.

The Learned Counsel Mr. Sounak Mitra appearing on behalf of the RP submits the amounts claimed and admitted are summarized below:

The Resolution Plan submitted by Mangalkari Asset Investment AIF was examined by the Resolution Professional in terms of Section 30(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and Regulations 37, 38 and 39 of the CIRP Regulations, 2016. The RP undertook a detailed verification of the statutory, financial and commercial components of the Plan before placing it before the Committee of Creditors.

The RP first evaluated the eligibility of the Resolution Applicant under Section 29A of the Code. The Resolution Applicant submitted the requisite affidavit, supporting documents, financial statements and declarations as required under the RFRP. Upon scrutiny, the RP confirmed that the Resolution Applicant was not disqualified under any clause of Section 29A. The RP has also filed Form-H Compliance Certificate confirming such eligibility.

The RP then examined whether the Resolution Plan satisfied the mandatory requirements under Section 30(2). The RP confirmed that the Plan (i) provides for full and priority payment of CIRP Costs, (ii) contains the mechanism for payment to stakeholders, (iii) provides for management and implementation of the Plan, and (iv) does not contravene any existing law for the time being in force.

As per the Information Memorandum and the claims collated by the RP, the Corporate Debtor has no workmen, no employees, and no Operational Creditors whose claims have been admitted. Therefore, there is no question of differential or discriminatory treatment amongst similarly placed stakeholders. The RP has certified that the Resolution Plan does not violate the waterfall structure mandated under Section 53.

The total Plan Value offered by the Successful Resolution Applicant is Rs. 4.16 crores, out of which the actual CIRP Costs are to be paid first, in full and in priority, in accordance with Section 30(2)(a) and Regulation 38(1). The balance amount is allocated to the secured Financial Creditors in terms of the distribution mechanism approved by the CoC.

The Resolution Plan provides for payment of the Financial Proposal in the following four tranches:

Rs. 50,00,000 within 30 days from approval of the Plan;

Rs. 1,00,00,000 within 90 days from approval;

Rs. 1,00,00,000 within 135 days from approval;

Rs. 1,66,00,000 within 180 days from approval.

These payments are subject to deduction of actual CIRP Costs.

The RP verified the feasibility and viability of the financial proposal by conducting discussions with the Resolution Applicant and seeking clarifications on timelines, fund sources and implementation capability. The RP has certified that the Resolution Applicant has demonstrated adequate capacity to implement the Resolution Plan.

The Resolution Plan contains detailed provisions relating to implementation, including constitution of a Monitoring Committee, identification of sources of funds, payment milestones, and the role of the Resolution Applicant upon approval of the Plan.

In compliance with the RFRP, the Resolution Applicant has furnished Performance Security of Rs. 41.60 Lakhs, being 10% of the total Plan Value, through bank transfer on 20.08.2025, within the stipulated period following issuance of the LOI on 16.08.2025.

The RP also apprised the CoC of the pendency of (i) an application under Section 19(2) filed against the suspended management for non-cooperation regarding possession of the land; and (ii) an application under Section 45 regarding undervalued transactions amounting to Rs. 45,00,000.

The Resolution Plan was thereafter placed before the CoC in successive meetings. The CoC undertook several rounds of deliberations on the commercial terms, feasibility, viability and distribution methodology, including whether distribution should be based on voting share or security interest.

After circulation of two alternative distribution sheets by the RP, the matter was taken up in the 11th CoC Meeting, where the CoC, with 89.94% voting share, approved the distribution mechanism based on the security interest held by each secured Financial Creditor.

The final negotiated Resolution Plan dated 10.06.2025 was placed before the CoC in its 12th Meeting held on 14.08.2025 for voting. After detailed discussion on feasibility, viability, possibilities of revival, time value of money and maximisation of value of the Corporate Debtor, the CoC proceeded to vote.

Upon conclusion of the physical voting process, the Resolution Plan submitted by Mangalkari Asset Investment AIF was approved with 100% voting share of the Committee of Creditors. Consequently, the Resolution Applicant was declared as the Successful Resolution Applicant in the CIRP of the Corporate Debtor.

The RP, having completed verification, evaluation and compliance certification, has recommended approval of the Resolution Plan under Section 30(6) of the Code, stating that the Plan is compliant, implementable, feasible, viable and in conformity with the objectives of the Code, facilitating revival of the Corporate Debtor as a going concern.

E. Compliances of the Resolution Plan submitted by the SRA with various provisions under the I&B Code and CIRP Regulations:

The RP has submitted that in terms of Regulation 39(4) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016, the RP has filed a Compliance Certificate in prescribed form i.e., Form “H”, annexed at pages Page 409-426 to the application.

It is submitted that the Successful Resolution Applicant has met the criteria approved by the CoC having regard to the complexity and scale of operations of the business of the Corporate Debtor in terms of Section 25(h)(2) of the I&B Code.29. Further, it is submitted that the Successful Resolution Applicant is eligible to submit a resolution plan in terms of Section 29A of the I&B Code and accordingly, an affidavit has also been furnished by the SRA.30. Learned Counsel for the Resolution Professional would submit the details of various compliances as envisaged within the I&B Code and the CIRP Regulations to which a Resolution Plan has been adhered to. Further, it is submitted that the Resolution Applicant has submitted its eligibility in terms of Section 30(1) of the I&B Code, 2016.31. It is submitted that the resolution plan does not contravene any of the provisions of law for time being force.32. It is further submitted that in terms of Section 30(2) of the I&B Code, 2016, (as amended vide Amendment dated August 16, 2019) the Resolution Plan, submitted by SRA provides the details of various compliances as under:

In terms of Regulation 27 of the CIRP Regulations, the RP appointed registered valuers on 06.01.2025, to determine the fair and liquidation value of the Corporate Debtor.

Further, following Regulation 35(2) of the CIRP Regulations, the RP has catered to the fair value and the liquidation value to the members of the CoC.

It is submitted that the members of the CoC had submitted an undertaking to the effect that it will maintain the confidentiality of the fair value and the liquidation value and shall not use such valuers to cause undue gain or undue loss to itself or any other person and comply with the requirements under 29(2) of the I&B Code.

The average fair value and the liquidation values obtained from the appointed Registered valuers and comparison with the realisable amount under the plan are as follows:

On a careful examination of the record, this Adjudicating Authority observes that the Committee of Creditors acted within the framework of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and the CIRP Regulations throughout the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process of the Corporate Debtor. The CoC convened meetings at each critical stage of the CIRP, deliberated on all material aspects placed before it by the Resolution Professional, and exercised its commercial wisdom in accordance with law.

The CoC held a total of twelve meetings, commencing from its first meeting on 26.12.2024, wherein the appointment of the Resolution Professional was confirmed with 100% voting share. The CoC met periodically thereafter to consider all statutory items, including extension of the CIRP period, publication and re-publication of Form G, approval of the RFRP, scrutiny of EOIs, and examination of Resolution Plans received in the process.

The CoC considered the request of interested Prospective Resolution Applicants seeking additional time, and in its 3rd meeting held on 15.02.2025, resolved to permit extension of the deadline for submission of EOIs. Pursuant thereto, Form G was re-published on 18.02.2025. Such steps reflect the CoC’s intent to maximise the value of the Corporate Debtor by widening participation.

The CoC applied itself independently to matters relating to feasibility, viability, financial proposals, distribution methodology and compliance with the statutory framework. In the 6th CoC Meeting held on 29.04.2025, the CoC noted the impending expiry of the 180-day CIRP period and, after discussion, resolved with 82.91% voting share to seek a 90-day extension. This Hon'ble Tribunal granted such extension on 13.06.2025. 40. Substantial deliberations were undertaken by the CoC on the commercial terms of the Resolution Plan submitted by Mangalkari Asset Investment AIF. In the 8th Meeting held on 10.06.2025, the Prospective Resolution Applicant was invited to engage in negotiations with the lenders. After negotiations, a revised financial offer was submitted on the same day, which was further examined by the CoC in subsequent meetings. 41. The CoC also deliberated extensively on the methodology for distribution of plan proceeds. In the 9th Meeting held on 26.06.2025, the CoC sought detailed distribution sheets from the RP and required clarity on security positions. Further discussions followed in the 10th Meeting held on 23.07.2025, wherein divergent views were expressed Bank of Baroda favouring distribution on voting share, while State Bank of India preferred allocation based on security interest.

Pursuant to the CoC's direction, the RP circulated two separate distribution sheets, one prepared on the basis of security interest and the other on voting share, enabling a fully informed decision-making process. Thereafter, in the 11th CoC Meeting held on 08.08.2025, the CoC voted on the issue and, with 89.94% voting share, resolved that distribution of plan proceeds would be made in accordance with the security interest held by each secured Financial Creditor.

The CoC thereafter convened the 12th CoC Meeting on 14.8.2025, wherein the final Resolution Plan dated 10.06.2025 was placed for consideration. The RP explained the terms of the Plan, including the total Plan Value of Rs. 4.16 crores, payment schedule, adherence to Section 30(2), and treatment of stakeholders. After discussion on feasibility, viability, timelines, and revival prospects, the Plan was put to physical voting.

The CoC, upon conclusion of the voting process, approved the Resolution Plan with 100% voting share, thereby exercising its commercial wisdom to select the plan that, in its collective assessment, maximised the value of the Corporate Debtor and ensured timely resolution. Mangalkari Asset Investment AIF was accordingly declared the Successful Resolution Applicant.

The conduct of the CoC, as reflected from the minutes of the meetings and proceedings, demonstrates that the CoC deliberated on every issue placed before it, sought clarifications from the Resolution Professional where required, engaged in negotiations with the Prospective Resolution Applicant, and took considered commercial decisions. No material irregularity, arbitrariness or procedural infirmity is discernible in the conduct of the CoC.

This Adjudicating Authority therefore finds no ground to interfere with the commercial wisdom exercised by the CoC. The CoC acted transparently, collectively, and in the best interest of value maximisation, consistent with the objectives of the Code, as also emphasised by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K. Sashidhar, Essar Steel, and as followed in the Rosedale Developers resolution plan approval.

As far as the question of granting time to comply with the statutory obligations or seeking approvals from authorities is concerned, the Resolution Applicant is directed to do so within one year from the date of this order, as prescribed under section 31(4) of the I&B Code.

We have perused the reliefs, waivers and concessions as sought in the Resolution Plan. It is evident that some of the reliefs, waivers and concessions sought by the Resolution Applicant come within the ambit of the I&B Code and the Companies Act 2013, while many others fall under the power and jurisdiction of different government authorities/departments.

This Adjudicating Authority has the power to grant only such reliefs, waivers and concessions that are directly in tune with the I&B Code and the Companies Act (within the powers of the NCLT). The reliefs, waivers and concessions that pertain to other governmental authorities/departments may be dealt with by the respective competent authorities/forums/offices, Government or Semi-Government of the State or Central Government concerning the respective reliefs, waivers and concession, whenever sought for. The competent authorities including the Appellate authorities may consider granting such reliefs, waivers and concessions keeping in view the spirit of the I&B Code, 2016 and the Companies Act, 2013.

It is almost trite and fairly well-settled that the Resolution Plan must be consistent with the extant law. The Resolution Applicant shall make necessary applications to the concerned regulatory or statutory authorities for the renewal of business permits and supply of essential services, if required, and all necessary forms along with filing fees etc. and such authority shall also consider the same keeping in mind the objectives of the Code, which is essentially the resolving the insolvency of the Corporate Debtor.

In this context, we would rely upon the judgment in Embassy Property Developments Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Karnataka reported at MANU/SC/1661/2019: (2020) 13 SCC 308, wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down that:

(Emphasis Added)

The reliefs sought for subsisting contracts/agreements can be granted, and no blanket orders can be granted in the absence of the parties to the contracts and agreements.

Concerning the waivers with regard to the extinguishment of claims which arose prior to the initiation of the CIR Process and which have not been claimed are granted in terms of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ghanashyam Mishra and Sons Private Limited vs. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited reported in MANU/SC/0273/2021: (2021)9SCC657: [2021]13SCR737 that “once a resolution plan is duly approved by the Adjudicating Authority Under Sub-section (1) of Section 31, the claims as provided in the resolution plan shall stand frozen and will be binding on the Corporate Debtor and its employees, members, creditors, including the Central Government, any State Government or any local authority, guarantors and other stakeholders. On the date of approval of resolution plan by the Adjudicating Authority, all such claims, which are not a part of resolution plan, shall stand extinguished and no person will be entitled to initiate or continue any proceedings in respect to a claim, which is not part of the resolution plan.” (Emphasis Added)

Further, the relevant part of the Ghanshyam Mishra Judgment (supra) in this regard is given below:

(Emphasis Added)

In this regard, we would also rely upon the judgement of the Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan in the matter of EMC v. State of Rajasthan, Civil Writ Petition No. 6048/2020 with 6204/2020 reported in (2023) ibclaw.in 42 HC, wherein it has been inter-alia held that:

(Emphasis Added)

Thus, on the date of approval of the resolution plan by the Adjudicating Authority, all such claims, that are not a part of the resolution plan, shall stand extinguished and no person will be entitled to initiate or continue any proceedings in respect to a claim, which is not part of the resolution plan. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India further laid down that all the dues including the statutory dues owed to the Central Govt, any State Govt or any local authority, if not part of the resolution plan, shall stand extinguished and no proceedings in respect of such dues for the period before the date on which the Adjudicating Authority grants its approval under Section 31 of the I&B Code could be continued.

Concerning the waivers sought in relation to guarantors, the Hon’ble Apex Court held in Lalit Kumar Jain v. Union of India reported in MANU/SC/0352/2021: (2021) 9 SCC 321: (2021) ibclaw.in 61 SC that the sanction of a resolution plan and finality imparted to it by Section 31 does not per se operate as a discharge of the guarantor’s liability. As to the nature and extent of the liability, much would depend on the terms of the guarantee itself.

Further, in Maitreya Doshi vs. Anand Rathi Global Finance Ltd. reported in MANU/SC/1216/2022, the Hon’ble Apex Court laid down that:

(Emphasis Added)

Further, we would rely upon the judgment rendered by the NCLAT in Roshan Lal Mittal v. Rishabh Jain reported in (2023) ibclaw.in 803 NCLAT that:

(Emphasis Added)

Hence, we would infer that all the guarantees whether personal or corporate in nature, will not be redeemed by the virtue of the approval of this resolution plan. Thus, if there are any guarantors of the corporate debtor, the creditor(s) will invoke those guarantees and an appropriate action against them, as per law, be taken.

For the reliefs and waivers sought for all inquiries, litigations, investigations, and proceedings shall be granted strictly as per section 32A of the I&B Code, 2016 and the provisions of the law as may be applicable.

In this context, we would infer that upon the approval of the Resolution Plan, the Corporate Debtor avails the limbs of new management to revive its business. Thus, all the past liabilities of the Corporate Debtor including criminal liability prior to the initiation of the CIR Process shall stand effaced and the new management will step into the shoes of the company with a fresh or clean slate. Hence, the old management shall be liable to face all the offences committed prior to the commencement of the CIR Process.

At this juncture, we would rely upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ajay Kumar Radheyshyam Goenka vs. Tourism Finance Corporation of India Ltd. reported in MANU/SC/0244/2023: (2023) 10 SCC 545 that:

Further, the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in Vasan Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. vs. The Deputy Director of Income Tax (Investigation), Unit 3(2) reported in MANU/TN/0243/2024: (2024) ibclaw.in 80 HC, (hereinafter referred to as ‘Vasan Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. I’) has held that:

Further, the Hon’ble Madras High Court in M/s. Vasan Healthcare Pvt Ltd v. M/s. India Infoline Finance Ltd, Crl O.P. No. 1772 of 2024, reported in (2024) ibclaw.in 700 HC, (hereinafter referred to as ‘Vasan Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. II’) has observed that:

Very recently, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Bhushan Power & Steel Limited v. Union of India in W.P. (CRL) 1261/2024, judgment dated 30.01.2025, has laid down that:

Further, in SREI Infrastructure Finance Limited vs. State of Tripura reported in MANU/TR/0474/2024, the Hon’ble High Court of Tripura has laid down that:

As far as the question of granting time to comply with the statutory obligations or seeking approvals from authorities is concerned, the Resolution Applicant is directed to do so within one year from the date of this order, as prescribed under section 31(4) of the I&B Code.

In case of non-compliance with this order or withdrawal of the Resolution Plan, the payments already made by the Resolution Applicant shall be liable for forfeiture.

In so far as the approval of the Resolution Plan submitted by Mangalkari Asset Investment AIF (Successful Resolution Applicant) is concerned, this Adjudicating Authority is bound by the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in K. Sashidhar vs. Indian Overseas Bank and Ors. reported in (2019) 12 SCC 150: MANU/SC/0189/2019, wherein it is held that:

Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Jaypee Kensington Boulevard Apartments Welfare Association and Ors. vs. NBCC (India) Ltd. and Ors. reported in (2022) 1 SCC 401: MANU/SC/0206/2021 at Para 216, has laid down that:

Further, in Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Limited vs. Satish Kumar Gupta reported at (2020) 8 SCC 531: MANU/SC/1577/2019, the Hon’ble Apex Court has propounded that:

Reinforcing the above, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Vallal RCK vs. Siva Industries and Holdings Limited reported in MANU/SC/0753/2022, has held that:

In the case at hand, we would note that the Resolution Plan submitted by Mangalkari Asset Investment AIF (Successful Resolution Applicant), has been approved by the Committee of Creditors of the Corporate Debtor by 100% voting share.

We have further noted that the Letter of Intent was issued on 16.08.2025, which has been unconditionally accepted by the SRA. Accordingly, is unanimously declared as a Mangalkari Asset Investment AIF “Successful Resolution Applicant”. Hence, in light of the overall facts and circumstances of the present case, this Adjudicating Authority has not interfered with the viability of the Commercial Wisdom as exercised by the Committee of Creditors of the Corporate Debtor.

In the light of the enumerations and observations made in this Order supra, we hereby APPROVE and FINALLY SANCTION the Resolution Plan submitted by Mangalkari Asset Investment AIF, Successful Resolution Applicant with a plan value of ₹222.32/- crores.

The Resolution Plan shall form part of this Order and shall be read along with this order for implementation. The Resolution Plan thus approved shall be binding on the Corporate Debtor and all other stakeholders involved in terms of Section 31 of the I&B Code, so that the revival of the Corporate Debtor Company shall come into force with immediate effect without any delay.

The Moratorium imposed under section 14 of the Code by virtue of the order initiating the CIR Process, shall cease to have effect from the date of this order.

The Resolution Professional shall submit the records collected during the commencement of the proceedings to the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Board of India for their record and also return them to the Resolution Applicant or New Promoters.

Liberty is hereby granted for moving any application, if required, in connection with the successful implementation of this Resolution Plan.

A copy of this Order is to be submitted to the Registrar of Companies (RoC) to whom the company is registered, by the Resolution Professional.

A copy of this Order be served upon the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) by the RP.

We find that the Applicant has submitted in Form H that the Resolution Professional has opined and determined the existence of PUFE transactions within the timelines and appointed the Transaction Auditor also within the timeline. We would infer that approval of the Resolution Plan shall not affect the proceedings of the PUFE applications and the Resolution Professional shall continue to pursue those applications sans any barrier with the approval of the CoC of the Corporate Debtor upon communication to the SRA. We would refer to the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Tata Steel BSL Vs Venus Recruiters reported at 2023/DHC/000257 wherein it is held that:

The Resolution Professional is further directed to hand over all records, premises/ factories/ documents to the Resolution Applicant to finalise the further line of action required for starting the operation. The Resolution Applicant shall have access to all the records/ premises/ factories/ documents through the Resolution Professional to finalise the further line of action required for starting the operation.

The Resolution Professional shall stand discharged from his duties with effect from the date of this Order. However, he is required to comply with our direction given in respect of PUFE application.

The Registry of this Adjudicating Authority is directed to send e-mail copies of the order forthwith to all the parties and their Learned Counsels for information and for taking necessary steps.

In terms of the view above, the interlocutory application being I.A. (IB) (Plan) No. 26/KB/2025 is allowed and stands disposed of accordingly.

Certified copy of the orders, if applied for with the Registry, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.