AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Under consideration is an application filed under Section 30(6) read with Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC, 2016) and Regulation 39(4) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 (CIRP Regulations) by the Resolution Professional of the Corporate Debtor viz., SRI MARG HUMAN RESOURCES PRIVATE LIMITED seeking approval of resolution plan submitted by Successful Resolution Applicant viz., HALLMARK GOLDEN COUNTY LIMITED seeking the following reliefs: -
A. Approve the Resolution Plan dated 30.10.2025 submitted on 30.10.2025 and thereafter, on 15.12.2025 by Hallmark Golden County Limited in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process of Srimarg Human Resource Private Limited, as approved by the CoC with 100% voting share under Section 30(4) of the Code, in terms of Section 31 of the Code; and
B. Consequently, declare that the approved Resolution Plan dated 30.10.2025 shall be binding on the Corporate Debtor and its employees, members, creditors including the Central Government, any State Government or any other local authority to whom a debt in respect of the payment of dues arising under any law for the time being in force, such as authorities to whom statutory dues are owed, guarantors and other stakeholders involved in the in the Resolution Plan; and
C. Grant Reliefs and Concessions as sought by the Successful Resolution Applicant in part-15, Clause 15.1-15.12 of the Resolution Plan dated 30 October 2025, if deemed appropriate.
D. To pass any order(s) this Tribunal may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
CORPORATE INSOLVENCY RESOLUTION PROCESS – IN BRIEF
The Corporate Debtor is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 on 18.03.2010. The Corporate Debtor was engaged in the business of providing manpower supply, staffing, and ancillary human resource management services to various industrial and service sector clients.
The Company Petition CP(IB)/211(CHE)/2023 was filed by Gee Vee Human Solutions India Private Limited (Operational Creditor), against the Corporate Debtor under Section 9 of the IBC, 2016 for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) of the Corporate Debtor. The Petition was admitted by this Tribunal vide an order dated 18.12.2024 and the Applicant was appointed as the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP). He was subsequently confirmed as the Resolution Professional in the 1st CoC meeting held on 17.01.2025.
The Applicant in accordance with the CIRP regulations, appointed two registered valuers for conducting fair value and liquidation value of the CD. Details of registered valuers and valuation is as below:
The Applicant made public announcement in Form A as per Regulation 6 of CIRP Regulations, in Financial Express (Chennai Edition in English) on 21.12.2024, Makkal Kural (Chennai edition in Tamil) on 21.12.2024, The Hans India (English – Tirupati Edition) on 22.12.2024 and Prajasakti (Telugu – Ongole Edition) on 22.12.2024 inviting claims from the creditors of the Corporate Debtor. Form A Public Announcement was also uploaded on the IBBI website.
Admitted claims of the CD as on 22.09.2025 are as below:
The Applicant collated the claims submitted by the creditors of the Corporate Debtor and constituted the Committee of Creditors (CoC). The 1st CoC meeting was held on 17.01.2025.
In terms of the resolution passed in the 2nd CoC meeting held on 11.02.2025, the Applicant published invitation for Expression of Interest (EoI) in Form-G as per Regulation 36A(1) of the CIRP Regulations on 16.02.2025 in Financial Express (Chennai Edition), Makkal Kural (Chennai edition in Tamil) as well the IBBI website. The last date for submission of EoI was fixed as 03.02.2025.
Pursuant to the issuance of Form G, the Applicant received EOIs from two Prospective Resolution Applicants (PRA). The list of PRAs is provided as below:
The CoC in its 5th CoC meeting held on 17.04.2025 approved the resolution for issuance of Request for Resolution Plan (RFRP) and Evaluation matrix to the PRAs.
Pursuant to the issuance of RFRP, one Resolution Plan from Piyush Jain proposing an amount of Rs.10,00,000/-(ten lakhs) on 02.07.2025 was received. CoC in its 8th meeting deliberated upon the plan and rejected it with 100% voting share. Further, CoC approved for issuance of fresh Form G.
The Applicant published fresh Form-G as per Regulation 36A(1) of the CIRP Regulations on 19.08.2025 in Financial Express (Chennai Edition), Makkal Kural (Chennai edition in Tamil) as well the IBBI website. The last date for submission of EoI was fixed as 03.09.2025.
Pursuant to the issuance of fresh Form G, the Applicant received EOIs from three Prospective Resolution Applicants (PRA). The list of PRAs is as provided below:
The last date for submission of Resolution plan by the PRA was 23.10.2025. Based on the request by the PRAs for extension of 10 days, the CoC in 11th CoC meeting extended 7 days time till 30.10.2025 for submission of Resolution Plan by 100% voting share.
Out of the PRAs in the final list, only Hallmark Golden County Limited submitted Resolution Plan on 30.10.2025 with a proposal of Rs. 32,00,000/-(Rupees Thirty-Two Lakhs) and submitted an affidavit under Section 29-A of IBC, 2016 showing eligibility to submit resolution plan. In the 12th CoC meeting, the CoC requested the PRA to reconsider the proposal.
Pursuant to the request for reconsideration, the PRA submitted a fresh proposal of Rs. 44,00,000/-(Rupees Forty Four Lakhs) on 15.12.2025. CoC in its 13th CoC meeting held on 15.12.2025 considered the revised proposal and with 100% voting approved the Resolution Plan submitted by Hallmark Golden County Limited. After considering the viability and feasibility under its commercial wisdom.
The Resolution passed in the 13th CoC meeting is as below:
"RESOLVED THAT pursuant to the provisions of Sections 30(4) and 31 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 read with applicable provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016, and subject to approval of the Hon'ble National Company Law Tribunal, the Committee of Creditors hereby approves the Resolution Plan submitted by Hallmark Golden County Limited for Srimarg Human Resource Private Limited, as placed before the Committee and initialled by the Resolution Professional for identification.
RESOLVED FURTHER THAT the Committee of Creditors confirms that the said Resolution Plan:
•complies with the requirements of Section 30(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and the applicable CIRP Regulations;
•provides for payment of insolvency resolution process costs in priority to other debts;
•provides for payment to Operational Creditors in accordance with the Code;
•does not contravene any provisions of law for the time being in force; and
•is feasible and viable.
RESOLVED FURTHER THAT the Resolution Professional be and is hereby authorized and directed to submit the approved Resolution Plan along with the voting results and necessary compliance certificate in Form H to the Hon'ble National Company Law Tribunal for its approval under Section 31 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and to do all such acts, deeds and things as may be necessary or incidental thereto.
The applicant issued letter of intent(LOI) to the Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA) i.e., Hallmark Golden County Limited on 16.12.2025. SRA accepted the LOI and provided the signed copy to the applicant on 18.12.2025.
SRA submitted performance guarantee on 20.12.2025 amounting to Rs.4,40,000/- (Rupees Four lakh forty thousand only) being 10% of the total resolution plan amount.
The Applicant confirmed the approved resolution plan dated 30.10.2025 to be in conformity with all statutory requirements as contemplated under the Code and Regulations made thereunder. The Applicant also conducted due diligence through Level Up Consultancy and confirmed that the SRA is not ineligible under Section 29A of IBC, 2016.
Hence, the present Application seeking approval of the Resolution Plan submitted by the SRA has been filed before this Tribunal.
Meanwhile, the Applicant appointed M/s SPA A and Associates for conducting a transaction review/forensic audit. Based on the interim report of the forensic auditor, the Applicant filed applications i.e., IA(IBC)/73(CHE)/2026, IA(IBC)/04(CHE)/2026 under Section 66 and 43 of IBC,2016.
3. SALIENT FEATURES OF THE RESOLUTION PLAN
The Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA) i.e., Hallmark Golden County Limited has extensive experience in finance, real estate, and business management. SRA is a diversified business enterprise with over two decades of experience in real estate development, infrastructure projects and allied services. Core business activity includes hospitality, construction contracting and urban infrastructure segments. SRA aims to revive the HR services business, enhance operational efficiency, and generate sustainable value for creditors, employees, and investors.
The SRA has confirmed in its affidavit that it is eligible under Section 29A of the IBC, 2016 read with Regulation 38(3) of the CIRP Regulations to submit a Resolution Plan for the Corporate Debtor. The affidavit is annexed along with the plan.
The Applicant has calculated the total amount due as on 23.09.2025 upon admitting the following claims, as per the provisions of the IBC and applicable regulations:
The total consideration proposed under this Resolution Plan shall be Rs. 44,00,000 (Rupees Forty-Four Lakhs Only), to be infused by the SRA for settlement and distribution among the stakeholders of the CD in accordance with the provisions of the IBC.
As per the Plan, the SRA has earmarked an amount of Rs.30.54 lakhs (being the estimated CIRP verified by RP) towards payment of CIRP costs, which shall be paid in priority and in full before any distribution is made to other stakeholders.
In the event if the actual CIRP amount exceeds earmarked amount, the SRA undertakes to separately infuse such additional amount over and above the Resolution Plan amount to meet such shortfall.
4. AMOUNTS PAYABLE UNDER THE RESOLUTION PLAN TO VARIOUS CLASSES OF CREDITORS OF THE CORPORATE DEBTOR.
5. SCHEDULE OF PAYMENTS
Clause 8 of the Resolution Plan provides for schedule of payments which is as below:
6. SOURCE OF FUNDS
SRA provides that the entire Resolution Plan amount shall be funded through committed and identifiable sources, including internal accruals of the Resolution Applicant, financial support from its group entities, and available credit facilities. In order to demonstrate financial capability and adequacy of funds, the Successful Resolution Applicant has furnished the Net Worth Certificate of its shareholders, evidencing a consolidated net worth of approximately Rs.10.12 crores as on 31.03.2025, thereby establishing the financial strength backing the implementation of this Resolution Plan. The Successful Resolution Applicant has also submitted a Bank Certificate confirming the availability of funds and a Declaration evidencing trade receivables from the Directors, to substantiate the liquidity position and committed sources of funding.
7. MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL OF THE AFFAIRS OF THE CORPORATE DEBTOR
As per clause 4 of the Scheme, upon approval of the Resolution Plan by this Tribunal, the CD shall stand merged with the SRA in accordance with, and to the extent provided under the Scheme of merger along with the Resolution Plan.
7.2. SCHEME OF MERGER OF CORPORATE DEBTOR WITH SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION APPLICANT:
It is stated that in terms of Regulation 37 of IBBI Insolvency of Corporate Persons Regulations, the SRA has proposed for Scheme of Merger of CD with SRA.
Rationale of the Scheme of Merger:
The proposed Scheme has been drawn up as an integral part of the Resolution Plan to revive the operations of the Transferee Company with the help of Transferor Company's capital and management. The proposed Amalgamation will enable Transferee Company to start on a clean slate and will have the following benefits as to simplification of holding structure and consequential savings in administrative and compliance cost. The Board of directors of the Transferor Company and Transferee Company have decided to amalgamate the Transferor Company with the Transferee Company in order to ensure better management of the Company as a single unit with focused management capabilities. The Board of directors of the Transferor Company and Transferee Company are of the opinion that the proposed Amalgamation of the Transferor Company with Transferee Company will be for the benefit of both the Transferor Company and Transferee Company in the following manner:
i)The Amalgamation will enable consolidation of the business of the two entities into one entity which will facilitate focused growth, operational efficiency, integration synergies and better supervision of the business of the group.
ii) The Amalgamation will enable pooling of resources of the Transferor Company with the resources of the Transferee Company to their advantage, resulting in more productive utilization of said resources, and cost and operational efficiency which would be beneficial to all stakeholders.
iii) The Amalgamation would facilitate scaling of operations, reduce administrative costs and garner greater visibility in the market.
iv) The Amalgamation would reduce shareholding layers and enable the Transferee Company to have direct control of the assets/business of the Transferor Company.
v)The Amalgamation will also enable smoother implementation of policy changes at a higher level from a management perspective and shall also help enhance the efficiency and control of the entities. There is no likelihood that interests of any shareholder or creditor of either the Transferor Company or the Transferee Company would be prejudiced as a result of the Scheme. The Amalgamation will not impose any additional burden on the members of the Transferor Company or the Transferee Company.
vi) The scheme is commercially and economically viable, feasible, fair, and reasonable and is in the interests of the Transferor Company, the Transferee Company, and their respective stakeholders.
7.5. Definitions as provided in the Scheme of Merger
"Appointed Date" means 31st March 2026 or the date of the approval of the Resolution Plan by the Tribunal, whichever is later.
"Approval Date" shall mean the date on which the resolution plan, to which the scheme of merger under Regulation 37(ba) of the ClRP Regulations is attached, is approved by this Tribunal.
"Completion Date" shall mean the date on which the Resolution Plan Value is paid by the Resolution Applicant in accordance with the terms of the resolution plan to which the scheme of merger under Regulation 37(ba) of the CIRP Regulations is attached.
"Effective Date" means the date or last of the dates on which the certified copy of the order of the Tribunal sanctioning this Scheme is filed with the concerned Registrar of Companies by the Transferor Company and the Transferee Company.
"Transferee Company" means HALLMARK GOLDEN COUNTY LIMITED, a company incorporated under the COMPANIES ACt,1956 with Corporate Identification No. U45200TN2008PLC066562 and having its registered office at NO.43, UNITED PLAZA, USMAN ROAD, T NAGAR, CHENNAI-600017, TAMILNADU, INDIA
"Transferor Company" means SRIMARG HUMAN RESOURCES PVT LTD, a company incorporated under the COMPANIES ACT,1956 with Corporate Identification No. U74990TN2010PTC074974 and having its registered office at NO;9, MUTHU NAGAR, POONAMALLEE, CHENNAI-600056, TAMILNADU, INDIA.
“Undertaking” shall mean and include the whole of the undertaking of the Transferor Company, as revived by operation of a resolution plan to which a scheme of merger under Regulation 37(ba) of the of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 ("CIRP Regulations") is attached, such that the business of the Corporate Debtor stands revived on a clean slate basis, on an assets sans-liabilities basis, and shall include, without limitation, all the assets, properties, rights, titles, and benefits of every kind and description, whether movable or immovable, tangible or intangible, corporeal or incorporeal, present or future, vested or contingent, in possession or reversion, including but not limited to:
land and buildings (whether owned, leased, licensed or otherwise occupied), plant and machinery, vehicles, furniture, fixtures, office and factory equipment, tools, inventory, stock-in-trade, work in progress, consumables, raw materials, and other tangible assets
investments, cash, bank balances, accounts, advances, deposits, receivables, funds, reserves, provisions, incentives, subsidies, grants, and benefits, including tax benefits such as input tax credits, carry forward of losses, and other similar benefits, and tax credits, including credits in respect of income tax, minimum alternate tax, wealth tax, sales tax, value added tax, service tax, CENVAT credit and other applicable taxes;
intellectual property rights of any nature, including but not limited to copyrights, patents, trademarks, trade names, industrial designs, domain names, technical know-how, trade secrets, software, licenses, approvals, registrations, accreditations, and applications for the same;
rights, privileges, easements, benefits, powers, authorities, consents, permits, approvals, licenses, quotas, entitlements, and all other rights of every kind and description, in each case, in connection with or relating to the business of the Transferor Company as revived under the resolution plan;
the benefits of all agreements, contracts, arrangements, memoranda of understanding, concessions, and other contractual rights in relation to the business of the Transferor Company as revived under the resolution plan:
all other assets, properties, rights, titles, benefits, and advantages whatsoever, whether now owned or hereafter acquired, and whether tangible or intangible, and all claims and powers of whatsoever nature in relation to the Transferor Company as revived under the resolution plan.
For the avoidance of doubt, "Undertaking" shall mean the business of the Transferor Company as revived on a clean slate basis under the resolution plan, on an assets-sans-liabilities basis, and shall exclude any liabilities or obligations of the Transferor Company prior to such revival.
Authorised, Issued, Subscribed and Paid-Up capital of the Transferor Company as on 31.03.2023 are as below:
Authorised, Issued, Subscribed and Paid-Up capital of the Transferee Company as on 31.03.2025 are as below:
Latest Financial Position of the Transferee Company as on 31.03.2025 is as below:
It is stated that, Transferee company is not subject to any investigation or proceedings under the Companies Act, 2013. Further there exist no adverse comments or qualifications in the auditor’s report for the recent financial years for the Transferee Company.
As per Clause 6 of Scheme of merger, all executives, staff, workmen and other employees in the service of Transferor company, immediately before the appointed date, shall become the executives, staff, workmen, and other employees of the Transferee Company. Their services shall be continuous and shall not be interrupted by reason of such transfer as if such transfer is effected under Section 25FF of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The terms and conditions of service applicable to the said staff, workmen, and other employees after such transfer shall not in any way be less favourable to them than those applicable to them immediately before the transfer;
As per Clause 9 of the Scheme of merger, there shall be no consideration issued by the Transferee Company, being the wholly owned subsidiary of Transferee Company and there shall be no requirement to comply with the provisions of section 66 of the Companies Act 2013 as the cancellation of the entire issued, subscribed, and paid-up equity share capital of the Transferor Company, is a consequence of the Amalgamation.
As per clause 10 of the Scheme of merger, Upon the Scheme becoming fully effective, the authorised share capital of the Transferor Company shall stand combined with the authorised share capital of the Transferee Company. Filing fees and stamp duty, if any, paid by the Transferor Company on their respective authorised share capital, shall be deemed to have been so paid by the Transferee Company on the combined authorised share capital and accordingly, the Transferee Company shall not be required to pay any fee/ stamp duty for its increased authorised share capital.
As per clause 10.2 of the Scheme, Clause V of the Memorandum of Association of the Transferee Company shall, without any further act, instrument or deed, be and stand altered, modified and amended pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Act by deleting the existing Clause and replacing it by the following:
"V The Authorized Share Capital of the company is Rs.6,00,000/-(Rupees Six Lakh only) divided into 60,000 Equity share of Rs.10/- each with the rights, privileges and conditions attached thereto as provided by the regulations of the company for the time being with power to increase or reduce the capital for the time being into several classes and attach thereto respectively such preferential qualified or special rights, privileges or conditions as may be determined by or in accordance with the regulations of the company to vary, modify or abrogate any such rights, privileges or conditions in such manner as may for the time being provided for by the regulations of the company"
As per Clause 11 of the Scheme, the Transferee Company shall account for the amalgamation of Transferee Company in its books of account in accordance with the Indian Accounting Standards (Ind AS) 103 for business combinations and/or other applicable Ind AS, as amended from time to time, notified under Section 133 of the Act read with the Companies (Indian Accounting Standards) Amendment Rules, 2016 and in accordance with prevailing guidelines and generally accepted accounting principles in India.
As per Clause 14 of the Scheme of merger, the Transferor Company shall be dissolved without the process of winding up on the Scheme becoming effective in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder.
8. MANNER OF SUPERVISION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PLAN:
As per Clause 6 of the Scheme, upon approval of the Resolution plan, a monitoring committee shall be constituted for supervising, overseeing and facilitating the implementation of the Resolution Plan during the Monitoring Period in accordance with Regulation 30(2)(d) of the CIRP Regulations.
Monitoring Committee shall consist of one representative of the Financial Creditors, one representative of Operational Creditors, one representative of SRA and the monitoring agent. During the Monitoring Period, the SRA shall be entitled to receive all notices, agendas, explanatory statements, minutes of meetings sent to the members of the Monitoring Committee, and participate in all meetings of the Monitoring Committee but not vote in any such meetings.
Monitoring agent shall be the RP on such remuneration as is being currently paid to the RP in terms of the CIRP till the approval date. If RP refuses or is unable to continue post approval of the plan, the monitoring committee shall appoint an independent person to act as the monitoring agent.
During the Monitoring Period: (i) the Monitoring Committee shall monitor the implementation of the Plan; (ii) the Monitoring Committee may decide to appoint advisors, legal and technical consultants, etc. as may be required; and (iii) the management and operations of the Company shall be undertaken, by the nominees of the Resolution Applicants on the Monitoring Committee along with the Monitoring Agent who will be subject to the guidance of the Monitoring Committee, in the ordinary course and on a going concern basis, and the promoters or the existing promoter group shall not, during such period, participate in the Company's management. During the Monitoring Period, the nominees of Financial Creditors on the Monitoring Committee and Monitoring Agent shall not be liable for any action/breach of the Resolution Applicants or their nominees on the Monitoring Committee.
In terms of clause 7 of the Resolution Plan, the SRA shall acquire management, control and governing rights upon payment of the entire Resolution Plan amount. Within 60 days from the Control transfer date, the Resolution Applicant shall cause all necessary filings, forms, intimations and applications to be made with the concerned RoC and all other statutory and regulatory authorities, as may be required for giving effect to the merger of the Undertaking of the Corporate Debtor with the SRA and for recording the change in management, control and ownership under Applicable Law.
9. TABULATION OF VARIOUS COMPLIANCES REQUIRED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF IBC, 2016
The Applicant has submitted the details of various compliances as envisaged within the provisions of IBC, 2016 and CIRP Regulations, which require a Resolution Plan to adhere to, which are reproduced hereunder:
10. MANDATORY CONTENTS OF THE RESOLUTION PLAN IN TERMS OF REGULATION 38 OF THE CIRP REGULATIONS:-
11. SECTION 29A COMPLIANCE
This Tribunal vide order dated 05.03.2026 directed the RP to file 29A compliance of SRA.
SRA filed an affidavit dated 30.03.2026 and stated that the Resolution Applicant does not fall under any disqualification specified under Section 29A.
SRA in its affidavit clarified that the entities Hallmark Infrastructure Private Limited, Hallmark Living Space Private Limited, which are undergoing CIRP process are separate legal entities and in no manner connected to the corporate debtor or the Successful Resolution Applicant.
It is stated that there exists no financial interdependence between the said entities.
SRA in its affidavit clarified that Mr. Anand Jain was declared a wilful defaulter by the lenders. The declaration of holding him as wilful defaulter has been stayed by the Hon’ble Madras High Court vide interim order dated 24.06.2025. It is further stated that, Anand Jain is merely a shareholder of the SRA and does not exercise any control or participate in the management of the Affairs of the company to attract any disqualification under Section 29A of IBC, 2016.
12. REPRESENTATION FROM EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION
It is stated that Corporate Debtor delayed in paying EPF contributions for the period 04/17 to 05/2021 and paid the dues during 01/04/2019 to 30/06/2024.
It is stated that, the CD was admitted into CIRP vide order dated 18.12.2025, subsequently EPFO issued summons vide S.No.TN/AMB/0065071/000/208/damages dated 13.03.2025, for appearance before the inquiry proceedings on 27.03.2025. It is stated that one Mr. Ashokan Marga appeared before the EPFO authority and did not contest the dues hence the enquiry was concluded. EPFO authority vide order dated 28.03.2025 levied a penalty of Rs. 1,72,412/- under Section 14B of the EPF & MP Act, 1952 and interest amount of Rs. 2,67,712/- for belated payments of EPF under Section 7Q of the EPF& MP Act, 1952.
It is stated that since the EPFO authorities were not informed about the CIRP process by the representative of CD, EPFO authorities issued a revenue recovery certificate for the non-payment of the levied penalty and interest on 03.04.2025. It is further stated that once an order under Section 8F is issued, it operates as conclusive proof of the dues already crystalised and determined under the Act.
It is stated that CD failed to make any intimation to the EPFO authority regarding admission under CIRP even after receiving the 14B, 7Q orders and the subsequent Recovery Certificate. Upon the knowledge of admission of CD into CIRP, a letter was issued to the RP on 21.01.2026 to pay the outstanding EPF dues.
It is stated that though EPFO authorities did not make the claim in stipulated claim form, the dues were brought to the knowledge of the CD on 03.04.2025. In terms of regulations, the RP ought to have informed the CoC regarding the EPFO claim and recommended for inclusion in the list of creditors and treated in the resolution plan.
13. REPLY TO EPFO’S REPRESENTATION
It is stated that after filing the present application, the Applicant received a letter dated 21.01.2026 from EPFO i.e., a demand notice in respect of provident fund dues of the CD. This fact was brought to the notice of this Tribunal whereby this Tribunal directed the Applicant to issue notice to the EPFO. In compliance thereof, notice was issued and EPFO authorities made their representation before this Tribunal.
It is evident from the representation of the EPFO that the claim of the EPFO did not crystalise as on the insolvency commencement date and assessment proceeding continued after commencement of CIRP which is in contravention with the provisions of IBC.
It is stated that, the EPFO did not file any claim during the CIRP despite the communication made by the RP regarding commencement of CIRP.
14. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS OF THIS TRIBUNAL:-
Heard the counsel for the Applicant and perused the documents on record
Before analysing the Resolution Plan, this Tribunal would consider the representation of EPFO authorities.
It is stated that the EPFO had conducted inquiry proceedings under Section 7Q and 14B of EPF & MP Act, 1952 on 27.03.2025. EPFO authorities vide order dated 28.03.2025 levied a penalty of Rs. 1,72,412/- under Section 14B of the EPF & MP Act, 1952 and interest amount of Rs. 2,67,712/- for belated payments of EPF under Section 7Q of the EPF& MP Act, 1952. Further, revenue recovery certificate was issued on 03.04.2025 on the CD.
At this juncture it is relevant to refer to Section 14 of the IBC, which provides as:
14. Moratorium.
(1)Subject to provisions of sub-sections (2) and (3), on the insolvency commencement date, the Adjudicating Authority shall by order declare moratorium for prohibiting all of the following, namely: -
(a)the institution of suits or continuation of pending suits or proceedings against the corporate debtor including execution of any judgement, decree or order in any court of law, tribunal, arbitration panel or other authority; ….. (emphasis supplied)
This Tribunal observes that the CD was admitted into CIRP on 18.12.2024. EPFO authorities conducted the inquiry proceedings on 27.03.2025, which is subsequent to the admission of CD into CIRP.
EPFO authorities have relied on Hon’ble Bombay High Court judgment in the matter of Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd and Ors v. The Central Board of Trustees, EPFO and Hon’ble NCLAT judgment in Association of Aggrieved Workmen of Jet airwaus (India) Limited vs. Jet Airways India Limited and Ors to support their case. However, this Tribunal holds that the facts of the judgments referred by the EPFO authorities are distinguishable from the present one. In the present case, the claim amount was not crystalised before admission of CD into CIRP, and the assessment proceedings were conducted during the moratorium period of CD.
This Tribunal relies on Hon’ble NCLAT judgment dated 09.01.2026 in the case of Employees Provident Fund Organisation vs Subhlaxmi Investment Advisory Pvt. Ltd and another Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 794 of 2025, wherein it was held as under:
31.…. An assessment was made later on by the EPFO basis which a demand has been made and such an assessment is not allowed under the moratorium existing. We have clearly noted the legal position that when the claim on the basis of assessment, which has been made subsequent to initiation of moratorium, is hit by Section 14, sub-section (1) of the IBC, we are of the view that no such claim can be admitted in the CIRP. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the Appeal filed by the Appellant does not merit intervention for setting aside the impugned order dated 28.03.2025.
Based on the above judgment, this Tribunal holds that the assessment proceedings conducted by the EPFO authorities on 27.03.2025 are subsequent to declaration of moratorium under Section 14 of IBC, 2016. Therefore, the claim of the EPFO authorities is hit by moratorium and no such claim can be admitted in the CIRP.
The Applicant has filed Compliance Certificate in Form H dated 19.12.2025. The same is appended as Annexure 16 of the Application.
It is seen from Form H that the Fair value of the Corporate Debtor has been estimated to be Rs.1,05,496/- (Rupees One Lakh Five Thousand Four Hundred Ninety Six Only), and the Liquidation value has been estimated to be Rs.1,05,496/- (Rupees One Lakh Five Thousand Four Hundred Ninety Six Only). The Resolution Plan value is Rs. 44,00,000 /- (Rupees Forty Four Lakhs Only).
It is also seen from Form – H that the Applicant has filed two PUFE Application under Section 43 and 66 of IBC, 2016. It is stated that the beneficiary of the PUFE Applications will be the CoC and the CoC will pursue the Applications as contemplated in the Plan.
The SRA has submitted an Affidavit under Section 29A of IBC, 2016 to the Resolution Professional confirming that, as on the date of this Plan and on the basis of the records of the Resolution Applicant, the Successful Resolution Applicant is eligible under Section 29A of the Code to submit the Plan.
In so far as approval of the Resolution Plan is concerned, this Tribunal is convinced on the decision of the Committee of Creditors, following the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of K. Sashidhar –Vs– Indian Overseas Bank (2019) 12 SCC 150, wherein in para 19 and 62 it is held as under;
“19.… In the present case, however, our focus must be on the dispensation governing the process of approval or rejection of resolution plan by the CoC. The CoC is called upon to consider the resolution plan under Section 30(4) of the I&B Code after it is verified and vetted by the resolution professional as being compliant with all the statutory requirements specified in Section 30(2).
62.………In the present case, however, we are concerned with the provisions of I&B Code dealing with the resolution process. The dispensation provided in the I&B Code is entirely different. In terms of Section 30 of the I&B Code, the decision is taken collectively after due negotiations between the financial creditors who are constituents of the CoC and they express their opinion on the proposed resolution plan in the form of votes, as per their voting share. In the meeting of the CoC, the proposed resolution plan is placed for discussion and after full interaction in the presence of all concerned and the Resolution Professional, the constituents of the CoC finally proceed to exercise their option (business/commercial decision) to approve or not to approve the proposed resolution plan. In such a case, non-recording of reasons would not per-se vitiate the collective decision of the financial creditors. The legislature has not envisaged challenge to the “commercial/business decision” of the financial creditors taken collectively or for that matter their individual opinion, as the case may be, on this count.”
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Committee of Creditors of Essar Steels –Vs– Satish Kumar Gupta & Ors. in Civil Appeal No. 8766 – 67 of 2019 at para 42 has held as under;
42.………Thus, it is clear that the limited judicial review available, which can in no circumstance trespass upon a business decision of the majority of the Committee of Creditors, has to be within the four corners of Section 30(2) of the Code, insofar as the Adjudicating Authority is concerned, and Section 32 read with Section 61(3) of the Code, insofar as the Appellate Tribunal is concerned, the parameters of such review having been clearly laid down in K. Sashidhar (supra).
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of K. Sashidhar v. Indian Overseas Bank and Ors. (supra) has lucidly delineated the scope and interference of the Adjudicating Authority in the process of approval of the Resolution Plan and held as under;
“55.Whereas, the discretion of the adjudicating authority (NCLT) is circumscribed by Section 31 limited to scrutiny of the resolution plan “as approved” by the requisite per cent of voting share of financial creditors. Even in that enquiry, the grounds on which the adjudicating authority can reject the resolution plan is in reference to matters specified in Section 30(2), when the resolution plan does not conform to the stated requirements. Reverting to Section 30(2), the enquiry to be done is in respect of whether the resolution plan provides: (i) the payment of insolvency resolution process costs in a specified manner in priority to the repayment of other debts of the corporate debtor, (ii) the repayment of the debts of operational creditors in prescribed manner, (iii) the management of the affairs of the corporate debtor, (iv) the implementation and supervision of the resolution plan, (v) does not contravene any of the provisions of the law for the time being in force, (vi) conforms to such other requirements as may be specified by the Board. The Board referred to is established under Section 188 of the I&B Code. The powers and functions of the Board have been delineated in Section 196 of the I&B Code. None of the specified functions of the Board, directly or indirectly, pertain to regulating the manner in which the financial creditors ought to or ought not to exercise their commercial wisdom during the voting on the resolution plan under Section 30(4) of the I&B Code. The subjective satisfaction of the financial creditors at the time of voting is bound to be a mixed baggage of variety of factors. To wit, the feasibility and viability of the proposed resolution plan and including their perceptions about the general capability of the resolution applicant to translate the projected plan into a reality. The resolution applicant may have given projections backed by normative data but still in the opinion of the dissenting financial creditors, it would not be free from being speculative. These aspects are completely within the domain of the financial creditors who are called upon to vote on the resolution plan under Section 30(4) of the I&B Code.
58.Indubitably, the inquiry in such an appeal would be limited to the power exercisable by the resolution professional under Section 30(2) of the I&B Code or, at best, by the adjudicating authority (NCLT) under Section 31(2) read with Section 31(1) of the I&B Code. No other inquiry would be permissible. Further, the jurisdiction bestowed upon the appellate authority (NCLAT) is also expressly circumscribed. It can examine the challenge only in relation to the grounds specified in Section 61(3) of the I&B Code, which is limited to matters “other than” enquiry into the autonomy or commercial wisdom of the dissenting financial creditors. Thus, the prescribed authorities (NCLT/NCLAT) have been endowed with limited jurisdiction as specified in the I&B Code and not to act as a court of equity or exercise plenary powers.” (emphasis supplied)
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Limited v. Satish Kumar Gupta and Ors. (2020) 8 SCC 531 after referring to the decision in K. Sashidhar (supra) has held as follows;
“73.There is no doubt whatsoever that the ultimate discretion of what to pay and how much to pay each class or sub-class of creditors is with the Committee of Creditors, but, the decision of such Committee must reflect the fact that it has taken into account maximising the value of the assets of the corporate debtor and the fact that it has adequately balanced the interests of all stakeholders including operational creditors. This being the case, judicial review of the Adjudicating Authority that the resolution plan as approved by the Committee of Creditors has met the requirements referred to in Section 30(2) would include judicial review that is mentioned in Section 30(2)(e), as the provisions of the Code are also provisions of law for the time being in force. Thus, while the Adjudicating Authority cannot interfere on merits with the commercial decision taken by the Committee of Creditors, the limited judicial review available is to see that the Committee of Creditors has taken into account the fact that the corporate debtor needs to keep going as a going concern during the insolvency resolution process; that it needs to maximise the value of its assets; and that the interests of all stakeholders including operational creditors has been taken care of. If the Adjudicating Authority finds, on a given set of facts, that the aforesaid parameters have not been kept in view, it may send a resolution plan back to the Committee of Creditors to re-submit such plan after satisfying the aforesaid parameters. The reasons given by the Committee of Creditors while approving a resolution plan may thus be looked at by the Adjudicating Authority only from this point of view, and once it is satisfied that the Committee of Creditors has paid attention to these key features, it must then pass the resolution plan, other things being equal.” (emphasis supplied)
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in its decision in Jaypee Kensington Boulevard Apartments Welfare Association & Ors. v. NBCC (India) Ltd. & Ors. in Civil Appeal no. 3395 of 2020 dated 24.03.2021 has held as follows;
76.The expositions aforesaid make it clear that the decision as to whether corporate debtor should continue as a going concern or should be liquidated is essentially a business decision; and in the scheme of IBC, this decision has been left to the Committee of Creditors, comprising of the financial creditors. Differently put, in regard to the insolvency resolution, the decision as to whether a particular resolution plan is to be accepted or not is ultimately in the hands of the Committee of Creditors; and even in such a decision making process, a resolution plan cannot be taken as approved if the same is not approved by votes of at least 66% of the voting share of financial creditors. Thus, broadly put, a resolution plan is approved only when the collective commercial wisdom of the financial creditors, having at least 2/3rd majority of voting share in the Committee of Creditors, stands in its favour.
77.In the scheme of IBC, where approval of resolution plan is exclusively in the domain of the commercial wisdom of CoC, the scope of judicial review is correspondingly circumscribed by the provisions contained in Section 31 as regards approval of the Adjudicating Authority and in Section 32 read with Section 61 as regards the scope of appeal against the order of approval.
77.1.Such limitations on judicial review have been duly underscored by this Court in the decisions above referred, where it has been laid down in explicit terms that the powers of the Adjudicating Authority dealing with the resolution plan do not extend to examine the correctness or otherwise of the commercial wisdom exercised by the CoC. The limited judicial review available to Adjudicating Authority lies within the four corners of Section 30(2) of the Code, which would essentially be to examine that the resolution plan does not contravene any of the provisions of law for the time being in force, it conforms to such other requirements as may be specified by the Board, and it provides for: (a) payment of insolvency resolution process costs in priority; (b) payment of debts of operational creditors; (c) payment of debts of dissenting financial creditors; (d) for management of affairs of corporate debtor after approval of the resolution plan; and (e) implementation and supervision of the resolution plan.
77.2.The limitations on the scope of judicial review are reinforced by the limited ground provided for an appeal against an order approving a resolution plan, namely, if the plan is in contravention of the provisions of any law for the time being in force; or there has been material irregularity in exercise of the powers by the resolution professional during the corporate insolvency resolution period; or the debts owed to the operational creditors have not been provided for; or the insolvency resolution process costs have not been provided for repayment in priority; or the resolution plan does not comply with any other criteria specified by the Board
77.6.1.The assessment about maximisation of the value of assets, in the scheme of the Code, would always be subjective in nature and the question, as to whether a particular resolution plan and its propositions are leading to maximisation of value of assets or not, would be the matter of enquiry and assessment of the Committee of Creditors alone. When the Committee of Creditors takes the decision in its commercial wisdom and by the requisite majority; and there is no valid reason in law to question the decision so taken by the Committee of Creditors, the adjudicatory process, whether by the Adjudicating Authority or the Appellate Authority, cannot enter into any quantitative analysis to adjudge as to whether the prescription of the resolution plan results in maximisation of the value of assets or not. The generalised submissions and objections made in relation to this aspect of value maximisation do not, by themselves, make out a case of interference in the decision taken by the Committee of Creditors in its commercial wisdom
78.To put in a nutshell, the Adjudicating Authority has limited jurisdiction in the matter of approval of a resolution plan, which is well defined and circumscribed by Sections 30(2) and 31 of the Code read with the parameters delineated by this Court in the decisions above referred. The jurisdiction of the Appellate Authority is also circumscribed by the limited grounds of appeal provided in Section 61 of the Code. In the adjudicatory process concerning a resolution plan under IBC, there is no scope for interference with the commercial aspects of the decision of the CoC; and there is no scope for substituting any commercial term of the resolution plan approved by the CoC. Within its limited jurisdiction, if the Adjudicating Authority or the Appellate Authority, as the case may be, would find any shortcoming in the resolution plan vis-à-vis the specified parameters, it would only send the resolution plan back to the Committee of Creditors, for re-submission after satisfying the parameters delineated by Code and exposited by this Court.”
Thus, from the catena of judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the scope of approval of the Resolution Plan, it is amply clear that only limited judicial review is available for the Adjudicating Authority under Section 30(2) and Section 31 of IBC, 2016 and this Adjudicating Authority cannot venture into the commercial aspects of the decisions taken by the Committee of Creditors.
In the instant case, the Resolution Plan has been approved by the CoC with 100% voting share.
On perusal of the documents on record, we are satisfied that the Resolution Plan is in accordance with sections 30 and 31 of the IBC. It also complies with regulations 38 and 39 of the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016.
In the light of what has been stated above, the Resolution Plan is Approved by this Adjudicating Authority, subject to the observations made in this order. The Resolution Plan shall form part of this Order. The Resolution Plan will be binding on the Corporate Debtor and other stakeholders.
The SRA has made payment of Performance Guarantee of Rs. 4,40,000 on 20.12.2025. The copy of bank statement evidencing performance guarantee deposited is annexed as Annexure – 15.
In case of non-compliance with this order or withdrawal of the Resolution Plan by the Successful Resolution Applicant, the Monitoring Committee shall forfeit the Performance Security furnished by the Resolution Applicant in the form of Performance Bank Guarantees.
This Tribunal approves the Resolution Plan as submitted by the SRA. Upon complete payment of Resolution Plan amount, the Scheme of merger proposed by the SRA shall become operative.
This Tribunal do further order:
In terms of clause 1.3 of Scheme of merger, the appointed date is the date of approval of Resolution Plan by this Tribunal.
Within 30 days from the date of final payment of resolution plan amount, SRA is directed to file the certified copy of this order sanctioning the Scheme of merger with the concerned Registrar of Companies for taking necessary actions. Upon Scheme of merger becoming effective, the Transferor Company/ Corporate Debtor undertaking shall be deemed to be transferred. The Transferor Company shall stand dissolved without the process of winding up.
Upon Scheme of merger becoming effective, the authorised share capital of the Transferor Company shall stand combined with the authorised share capital of the Transferee Company/SRA. the Transferee Company shall file the revised Memorandum and Articles of Association with the concerned Registrar of Companies and further make the requisite payments of the differential fee (if any) for the enhancement of authorized capital of the Transferee Company after setting off the fees paid by the Transferor Companies.
all the services of all the employees of the Demerged Undertaking employed in the Transferor Companies shall stand transferred to the Transferee Company on the same terms and conditions at which these employees are engaged by the Transferor Companies without any interruption of service as a result of the transfer
The Resolution Applicant has undertaken that anything contained in this Resolution Plan, its Addendum, Annexures, Schedules, or any subsequent document submitted in furtherance thereof, any reliefs, concessions, assumptions, terms or conditions of a similar nature sought by the Resolution Applicant shall be deemed to constitute a request to the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT) for its consideration. The acceptance or rejection of such requests by the NCLT shall have no bearing on, and shall not in any manner affect or prejudice, the validity, implementation or enforceability of this Resolution Plan. The Resolution Applicant shall remain fully bound to implement the Resolution Plan strictly in accordance with its approved terms and timelines
The Resolution Applicant has sought for reliefs and concessions under the Resolution Plan and the same are dealt with hereunder;
| S. NO | RELIEF AND/OR CONCESSIONS AND APPROVAL SOUGHT BY RESOLUTION APPLICANT (CHAPTER 16 OF RESOLUTION PLAN) | ORDERS THEREON |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | All Governmental authorities including FEMA, SEBI, FERA, RBI, AML, ROC, GST, Income Tax, Cess, Fee and other statutory authorities shall waive the non-compliances of the corporate debtor prior to the approval date. The relevant governmental authorities shall also not initiate any investigations, actions, or proceedings in relation to any noncompliance with applicable law by the corporate debtor during the period prior to the approval date. Neither shall be resolution applicant, nor the corporate debtor, nor their respective directors, officers and employees appointed on and as of the approval date be liable for any violations, liabilities, penalties, or fines with respect to or pursuant to the corporate debtor not having in place the requisite licenses and approvals required to undertake its business as per applicable law, or any non-compliances of applicable law by the corporate debtor. Further, wherever necessary, the relevant governmental authorities will provide a one | Granted in terms of provisions of IBC,2016 and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ghanashyam Mishra and Sons v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited. (Civil Appeal No.8129 of 2019) |
| S. NO | RELIEF AND/OR CONCESSIONS AND APPROVAL SOUGHT BY RESOLUTION APPLICANT (CHAPTER 16 OF RESOLUTION PLAN) | ORDERS THEREON |
| year of approval of resolution plan by NCLT, for the Resolution Applicants to assess the status of any non-compliances under the applicable law and to procure that the company regularizes such non compliances under the applicable law existing prior to the approval date. | ||
| 2 | Certain Business permits (including but not limited to permission for supply of water, electricity, operation of lifts) of the Corporate Debtor which would be required for the corporate debtor to operate as a going concern have lapsed, expired, suspended, cancelled, revoked or terminated or the corporate debtor has non compliances in relation thereto. Accordingly, all governmental authorities to provide reasonable time period after the Approval Date to the Corporate Debtor/ Resolution Applicants to renew the business permits, licenses, sanctions and approvals and to ensure that the corporate debtor is compliant with the terms of such business permits and applicable law without initiating any investigations, penalty, actions or proceedings in relation to such non compliances. | This is for the appropriate authorities to consider, keeping in view the object of IBC, 2016 |
| 3 | The Central Board of Direct Taxes to consider the corporate debtor as a closely held company for the purposes of Section 79 read with Section 2 (18) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the change in shareholding of the corporate debtor pursuant to the plan to not lead to lapse of brought forward losses of the corporate debtor. | This is for the appropriate authorities to consider. |
| 4 | The Corporate Debtor, Resolution Applicants and its nominees shall not be liable for any taxes on account of the allotment of shares in their favour under the Resolution Plan, more particularly on the basis of any "deemed profit" | This is for the appropriate authorities to consider. |
| S. NO | RELIEF AND/OR CONCESSIONS AND APPROVAL SOUGHT BY RESOLUTION APPLICANT (CHAPTER 16 OF RESOLUTION PLAN) | ORDERS THEREON |
| having been made by the Resolution Applicants under the tenets of Section 56 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. | ||
| 5 | Under Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961, assessee company for which a rehabilitation scheme was approved or reference was made under the provisions of the erstwhile SICA was not subject to minimum alternate tax until the net worth becomes positive. Similar benefit to be extended to a resolution plan approved in accordance with the code and CIRP regulations since the code supersedes all other applicable law and deals with the same subject matter as the erstwhile SICA. In light of this, the Central Board of direct Taxes to not subject income or gain or profits, if any, arising as a result of giving effect to the plan to tax including minimum alternate tax in the hands of Corporate Debtor; | This is for the appropriate authorities to consider |
| 6 | All Governmental authorities to grant any relief, concession or dispensation as may be required for implementation of the transactions contemplated under the plan in accordance with its terms and conditions; | This is for the appropriate authorities to consider in view of the object of IBC. |
| 7 | All assets (including properties, whether freehold, leasehold or license basis) of the Corporate Debtor to be vested in the restructured corporate debtor free and clear of all encumbrances irrespective of whether claim received or not subject to the terms of the Resolution Plan | Granted |
| 8 | The Resolution Applicants shall be allowed to terminate / renegotiate material contracts including but not limited to agency agreements entered by the Corporate Debtor before the insolvency commencement date without any penalty or interest at its own discretion. | Granted |
| S. NO | RELIEF AND/OR CONCESSIONS AND APPROVAL SOUGHT BY RESOLUTION APPLICANT (CHAPTER 16 OF RESOLUTION PLAN) | ORDERS THEREON |
| 9 | The CBDT, CBEC & PF & ESI shall grant exemption/waiver from: (a) treating any transaction contemplated in this plan as being void or non compliant with any provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961; and (b) all Tax Liabilities (including interest and penalty) and tax proceedings arising in respect of periods up to the Approval Date, including such liabilities/proceedings for periods up to the Approval Date in respect of on going or potential income tax litigations at all levels. | This is for the appropriate authorities to consider, keeping in view the object of IBC, 2016 Granted |
| 10 | All designated authorized dealer category I Banks/RBI to approve or dispense such actions as may be required for actions contemplated under the plan in accordance with its terms and conditions. | This is for the appropriate authorities to consider, keeping in view the object of IBC, 2016 |
| 11 | All creditors of the Corporate Debtor to withdraw all legal proceedings commenced against the corporate debtor in relation to claims, including without limitation all criminal proceedings, proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and proceedings under SARFAESI and RDDBFI, within 60 (sixty) days of the approval date and undertake to not take any action which precipitates the proceedings against the corporate debtor. | Granted in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ghanashyam Mishra and Sons v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited. (Civil Appeal No.8129 of 20 19) |
Certified copy of this Order be issued on demand to the concerned parties, upon due compliance.
Liberty is hereby granted for moving any Application if required in connection with the implementation of this Resolution Plan.
A copy of this Order is to be submitted to the concerned Office of the Registrar of Companies.
The Monitoring Committee shall submit quarterly reports regarding the status of implementation of Resolution Plan to this Tribunal in terms of Regulation 38(4)(c) of the CIRP Regulations, 2016.
It is directed that the Monitoring Committee shall be constituted in terms of Regulation 38(4) of the CIRP Regulations, 2016. Further, the Resolution Professional shall also be compensated as per of Regulation Proviso to 38(4)(b) of the CIRP Regulations, 2016. Regulation 38(4) is extracted hereunder,
“38. Mandatory contents of the resolution plan.
. .
[(4) (a) The committee shall consider setting up a monitoring committee for monitoring and supervising the implementation of the resolution plan.
(b)The monitoring committee may consist of the resolution professional or any other insolvency professional, or any other person, including representatives of the committee and representatives of resolution applicant(s), as its members: Provided that where the resolution professional is proposed to be part of the monitoring committee, the monthly fee payable to him shall not exceed the monthly fee received by him during the corporate insolvency resolution process.
(c)The monitoring committee shall submit quarterly reports to the Adjudicating Authority regarding the status of implementation of resolution plan.]”
The SRA is directed to pay the incidental expenses of the Monitoring Committee.
Accordingly, IA(IBC)(PLAN)/1/CHE/2026 stands disposed of.
The Registry is directed to send e-mail copies of the order forthwith to all the parties and their Counsels for information and for taking necessary steps