M/s Memoir & Ors. vs M/s. Eagle Home Appliances Pvt Ltd

IA(PLAN)/90/2025: The above IA is listed for pronouncement of the order. The same is pronounced in open court, vide a separate order.

This Interlocutory Application has been filed by Mr. Amit Pareek, the Resolution Professional of M/s Eagle Home Appliances Private Limited, (“the Applicant/ Resolution Professional”) under Section 30(6) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“the Code”), seeking approval of the Resolution Plan submitted by Logenix Services Pvt Ltd which has been approved by the Committee of Creditors by a vote of 99.09% in the 15^th CoC meeting held on 27th May, 2025.

The petition filed by M/s Memoir (“Operational Creditor”) against M/s Eagle Home Appliances Private Limited (“Corporate Debtor”) was admitted by this Tribunal vide order dated 28.03.2024 under Section 9 of the Code (“said order”), thereby initiating Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP”) of the Corporate Debtor. The said Corporate Debtor is a private company incorporated on 11.01.1965 under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, CIN: U26100PN1965PTC139986 and having its registered office at 4th Floor, Parmar Gallery, S.No.77, Shivarkar Road, Wanawadi, Pune, Maharashtra, India, 411040. The Corporate Debtor is engaged in the business of manufacturing and exporting of thermoware, cookware, vacuumware and such other products and services.

Pursuant to the said order dated 28.03.2024, Mr. Rajas Shreeram Bodas was appointed as the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP). Subsequent to the admission of the petition for CIRP, a Public Announcement inviting claims from creditors was made by the IRP on 04.04.2024 in Financial Express (English), Loksatta (Vernacular Language) Newspapers in accordance and the same was also published on the designated website of IBBI in compliance with Regulation 6 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process of Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 (“IBBI (CIRP) Regulations, 2016”). The last date of submission of claims was 15.05.2024. Following the Public Announcement, the IRP received claims from the stakeholders/creditors and constituted the CoC.

In the 1^st CoC meeting held on 23.05.2024, the IRP was appointed as the Resolution Professional by the CoC. Later on, in the 5^th CoC meeting held on 16.09.2024, the Applicant was appointed as the new RP, which was later approved by this Tribunal vide order dated 18.11.2024 in IA No.5197 of 2024.

The Applicant submits that the CIRP period of 180 days expired on 25.09.2024. Thereafter, the erstwhile RP filed an IA/5623/2024 seeking extension of 90 days, which was allowed vide order dated 06.12.2024. Further, pursuant to the CoC's approval in the 9th CoC meeting, the Resolution Professional filed IA No.1399/2025 seeking an extension of 90 days, which was allowed, vide order dated 28.03.2025, extending the CIRP period from 06.03.2025 to 03.06.2025.

Pursuant to the discussions in the 9th CoC meeting and approval of the eligibility criteria under Section 25(2)(h) of the Code read with the relevant Regulations, the RP invited Expression of Interest (“EoI”) in Form-G on 04.02.2025 through publication in the Financial Express (English) and Loksatta (Marathi), inviting Prospective Resolution Applicants (“PRAs”) to submit EoIs by 19.02.2025.

In response, EoIs were received from two PRAs — Logenix Services Pvt. Ltd. and Real Value Infotech Projects Private Limited. The EoI submitted by Real Value Infotech Projects Private Limited was found non-compliant, as it lacked details of the refundable interest-free EMD of Rs.10 lakhs and did not include hard copies of the EoI documents. Despite reminders sent via emails dated 20.02.2025 and 21.02.2025 and telephonic follow-ups, no response was received, and the RP accordingly excluded Real Value Infotech Projects Private Limited from the provisional list of PRAs, duly intimating the company of such non-inclusion.

Upon verification of the EoI documents and with the approval of the CoC, the RP published the provisional list of PRAs on 22.02.2025 and the final list on 02.03.2025 which included Logenix Services Private Limited as the only PRA. The Evaluation Matrix, Information Memorandum, and other process documents for the Request for Resolution Plans (“RFRP”) were shared with the PRA on 02.03.2025, in accordance with Regulation 36B of the CIRP Regulations and pursuant to CoC approval in the 10th CoC meeting held on 15.02.2025, the last date for submission of the resolution plan was fixed as 02.04.2025.

In the meantime, this Tribunal vide order dated 07.04.2025 in IA No. 3886 of 2024 in CP (IB) No. 352/MB/2021, filed by Eastern Enterprises seeking admission of its claim as a Financial Creditor, directed the RP to verify the claim in light of the findings recorded therein. Pursuant thereto, the RP verified the claim of Eastern Enterprises, along with the claims of similarly placed creditors that had been kept in abeyance pending finalisation of the said order. Upon due verification, the RP prepared the updated list of creditors as on 11.04.2025 and reconstituted the CoC accordingly. The list of reconstituted CoC is as follows:

The Applicant submits that on the request of Logenix Services Pvt Ltd and subsequent to the approval of CoC in the 11^th CoC meeting held on 29.03.2025, the timeline for submission of Resolution Plan was extended to 30.04.2024.

The Resolution Plan, received from the PRA on 30.04.2025, was opened in the 12th CoC meeting held on 05.05.2025. Discrepancies noted by the RP were communicated to the PRA on 13.05.2025 and rectified by 19.05.2025. The 13th CoC meeting fixed 22.05.2025 as date for consideration and negotiation of the Plan. In the 14th CoC meeting held on 22.05.2025, the PRA presented its Plan and enhanced the Plan value at the CoC's instance. In the 15th CoC meeting dated 27.05.2025, the RP placed the modified Plan dated 23.05.2025 before the CoC for voting, and the CoC approved the Resolution Plan submitted by M/s. Logenix Services Pvt. Ltd, with 99.09% votes in favour of the Plan.

The valuation of the assets of the Corporate Debtor was already been conducted by the IBBI registered valuers appointed by the erstwhile RP. As per the Valuation Reports, the valuation of assets of Corporate Debtor as on the CIRP commence date i.e., 28.03.2024 is as under:

Upon taking over the assignment, the present Resolution Professional, effected recovery of Rs.3 Cr from related parties of the Corporate Debtor. Valuers for Plant and Machinery were not appointed by the erstwhile RP, based on information from the suspended management that the assets mainly comprised old molds (from 2010 onwards) kept with various vendors, which had remained unused for long, held negligible value, and were being withheld by vendors on account of unpaid dues. The RP placed this matter before the 10th CoC meeting (15.02.2025), where it was collectively decided not to appoint a registered valuer, as the cost of valuation would exceed the likely realisable value of the assets.

It is submitted that Logenix Services Pvt. Ltd (“SRA”), is private company incorporated on 19.02.2016 under the Companies Act 2013, having its registered office at Shop 2, Zee Sargam C.H.S. Ltd, Dixit Road Vile Parle (East), Mumbai city, Maharashtra, India, 400057.

Financial Strength and solvency of the PRA:

The Resolution Applicant proposes own source as per Net Worth Certificate that stands at Rs. 41,92,74,490/- as on 31.03.2024.

It is submitted that the RP has provided an estimated CIRP Cost of Rs. 30,00,000/-. As stipulated in the Resolution Plan, the total amount of CIRP Costs once approved by the CoC shall be paid in priority to all other payments. It is stated that such amount shall be either discharged from the Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) or upfront infusion to be brought within 60 days from the Approval of Plan by this Tribunal. In case, the actual CIRP is more than this estimates than such excess cost shall be paid by RA by infusing owned fund whereas if the actual CIRP cost is less than this estimation (as provided by RP) than such excess will be utilize towards the Working Capital.

In accordance with Regulation 38(1-A) of the IBBI Rules, 2016, the statement showing the treatment given to the stakeholders as given below: (Amount in Rs)

The Applicant submits that the SRA has deposited a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) towards the EMD amount at the time of submission of EOI and Rs. 25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Five Lakhs only) at the time of submission of Resolution Plan i.e. in total Rs.35,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty-Five Lakhs only), however as per the clause 2.8 of the RFRP an amount of Rs.25,00,000/-, was required to be submitted as EMD.

The Applicant submits that the total amount of Rs. 35,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty-Five Lakhs only) submitted by the SRA as EMD, was approved by the COC to be utilised as Performance Security, in the 14^th COC Meeting held on 22.05.2025 with 100% votes in favour. Further, it is submitted that in this regard, the Relevant Clause of RRPF has been modified & undertaking is received from SRA.

No payment shall be made to the Equity Shareholders of the Corporate Debtor since the Liquidation Value of the Corporate Debtor (as per our internal estimates) is inadequate to make any payment to such persons.

All existing Equity Shares of the Corporate Debtor prior to the Effective Date of the Plan, shall stand cancelled and extinguished in their entirety. No compensation shall be payable to promoters or any other shareholders for such cancellation. Upon cancellation, all rights, entitlements, and liabilities arising out of or relating to such Equity Shares shall stand permanently extinguished.

The existing shares shall stand cancelled and new shares of Rs.35,00,000/-(Rupees thirty-five lakhs only) shall be issued and allotted at face value of Rs. 10/- each through fresh issue of 3,50,000 equity shares to the SRA.

The Applicant has through his Additional Affidavit dated 07.03.2026 submitted that this matter was listed for hearing on 23.02.2026, on which this Tribunal directed the Applicant to furnish the Request for Resolution Plan (RFRP) and the details regarding utilisation of receipts from the sale of the Trade Mark by way of an additional affidavit. Accordingly, in compliance of the said direction of this Tribunal, the Applicant has bought on record the copy of RFRP along with Financial statement for the F.Y 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 showing the details of amortisation of trademark which was acquired in the year 2003 and has submitted the following:

This Tribunal had vide order dated 20.08.2026 raised question with respect to the reduction of Performance Security from 20% to Rs.35 lacs and other with respect to utilization of the sale amount of Rs. 6 lacs and asked the Applicant to file written submission. The Applicant has in compliance with the said direction, through its written submission dated 22.08.2026 submitted that:

We have heard the Ld. Counsels of the Applicant and perused the documents available on record.

When a Resolution Plan is submitted, the RP’s primary obligation under the Code is to examine whether the Resolution Plan is in compliance with provisions of the Code, CIRP Regulations and also meets the requirements set out in the RFRP.

For appreciating the facts, it is necessary to check the procedure prescribed under the Code and the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 (“CIRP Regulations”) with respect to submission and approval of the Resolution Plan by the CoC.

It is necessary to specifically refer Regulation 36B(1), 36B(4A), 36B(5) of the CIRP Regulations:

The above Regulation 36B(1) provides that the RP within 5 days of the issuance of the Final List of PRAs, shall issue the IM, RFRP and Evaluation matrix to every Resolution Applicant in the Final List. Regulation 36B(4A) mandates that the RFRP requires a resolution applicant, whose plan is approved by the CoC under Section 30(4), to furnish performance security within a specified timeline; this security stands forfeited if the applicant, after approval of the Plan by the Adjudicating Authority, fails to implement the plan or contributes to such failure in accordance with its terms and implementation schedule- the objective being to ensure genuine commitment and deter withdrawal or non-implementation post-approval. The nature, value, duration and source of the security are determined by the CoC and specified in the RFRP having regard to the plan and the CD's business, and may be fixed (e.g., a bank guarantee for a specific sum and tenure) or linked to variables such as the plan's term or amounts payable to creditors. Further, sub-regulation (5) provides that any modification to the request for resolution plans or the evaluation matrix issued under Regulation 36B(1) is deemed to be a fresh issue, thereby restarting the process and making it subject to the timelines prescribed under sub-regulation (3), so that resolution applicants get the full statutory period to respond to the revised terms. Additionally, sub-regulation (6) provides for extension of timeline for submission of Resolution Plans and sub-regulation (7) stipulates that RP may with the approval of the CoC, re-issue the RFRP if the resolution plans received in response to an earlier request are not satisfactory, however the request has to be confined to only the prospective resolution applicants in the final list.

It is noted that, in the present case since there was only one PRA i.e Logenix Services Pvt. Ltd (SRA) in the Provisional and Final List of PRAs, thus the Resolution Professional accordingly issued the IM, RFRP and evaluation matrix to the sole PRA on 02.03.2025. Now, before proceeding to check the content of the Resolution Plan, it is pertinent to refer few provisions of the RFRP:

The requirements stipulated under the above provisions of RFRP, are briefly as follows:

Now, the compliances in context of the above stated provisions of RFRP have to be taken into consideration. The said compliances are as follows:

In this regard, the Applicant has submitted that at the PRA's request, the CoC also considered and approved, with 100% voting share, a modification of the PBG to Rs. 35 lacs. Applicant submits that such modification was expressly contemplated under the RFRP itself: while Clause 2.9.1 prescribed the PBG requirement, Clause 2.9.7 expressly empowered the CoC, subject to the prescribed voting threshold, to revise its value and validity depending on the terms of the Resolution Plan, and Clause 2.3 provided the requisite flexibility in the RFRP process prior to approval. The modified Resolution Plan dated 23.05.2025 was accordingly placed before, and approved by, the CoC in its 15th meeting (27.05.2025) with 99.09% voting share. It is further submitted that no prejudice was caused to any competing PRA, as only one EOI was received pursuant to the Second Form-G and only one applicant featured in the Final List of PRAs; consequently, exercise of the power under Clause 2.9.7 of the RFRP could not have adversely affected any other applicant, there being none.

Under Regulation 36B(5) of the CIRP Regulations, any modification to the RFRP is deemed to be a fresh issuance thereof, attracting a fresh 30-day timeline for submission of Resolution Plans in compliance with the modified RFRP. The object underlying the phrase “shall be deemed to be a fresh issue” under this Regulation is to enable the CoC to modify the RFRP (if required) prior to the submission of the Resolution Plans by the PRA/s, and thereafter provide a fresh period of minimum 30 days for submission of Resolution Plans which are in conformity with such modified terms. While modification of the RFRP is not per se barred in law, any such modification must be done by the CoC prior to submission of Resolution Plan or else the very phrase “shall be deemed to be a fresh issue” contained in Regulation 36 of the CIRP Regulations, would be rendered otiose.

From the points of observations in respect of compliances of the terms of RFRP mentioned in para no.36 of this order, it is noted that, instead of complying with the requirement stipulated in the RFRP for deposit of an EMD of Rs. 25 lacs along with submission of the Resolution Plan, the SRA has, in fact, deposited an amount of Rs. 35 lacs towards PBG. It is further noted that the modification of Clause 2.9.1 of the RFRP was effected only after the said sum of Rs. 35 lacs had already been deposited along with the Plan. Rather than submitted the balance amount of EMD of Rs.15 lacs, the SRA submitted a fresh amount of Rs.25 lacs and requested the CoC to consider it as PBG, indicating complicit conduct of CIRP.

Further, it is observed that while submitting the Resolution Plan, the SRA had already deposited a total sum of Rs. 35 lacs to be treated towards PBG; yet it was only thereafter, in the 14th CoC meeting held on 22.05.2025, that the CoC approved reduction of the PBG from Rs. 77 lacs (20% of the plan value) to Rs. 35 lacs. It clearly demonstrates that the SRA had presupposed that the said proposal though being non-compliant with the RFRP would be considered and will get approved by the CoC.

This sequence of events demonstrates that the PBG was modified to suit the convenience of the SRA, contrary to the provision of Regulation 36B(5) of CIRP Regulations. The predetermined conduct of the SRA and subsequent accommodation by the CoC is in clear violation of Regulation 36B(5) which mandates modification of RFRP prior to submission of Resolution Plans. Further, the said approval for reduction of PBG has been done without due regard to the safeguards contemplated under Regulation 36B(4A) of the CIRP Regulations and the RFRP, both of which are intended to secure the successful implementation of the Resolution Plan. It is also observed that no justifiable reason has been placed on record for reducing the performance security from Rs. 77 lacs to Rs. 35 lacs, for successful implementation of a Resolution Plan valued at Rs. 3,85,00,000/-, which in any case is dehors the provisions of Regulation 36B(4A) and Regulation 36(B)(5) of IBBI CIRP Regulations.

In support of its contention regarding power of the CoC concerning modification of PBG in terms of the RFRP, the Applicant has placed reliance on various judgments (refer para no.29 above), however, it is important to note that the decision in the said judgements are with respect to authority of the CoC concerning modification of PBG in terms of the RFRP, whereas the issue in the present case is the modification of terms of RFRP pertaining to the PBG, done by the CoC at the behest of the SRA, retrospectively, and in complete violation to Regulation 36B(5) of IBBI CIRP Regulations. Hence, the reliance placed by the applicant are misplaced.

Further, in this regard, it is also necessary to peruse the contents of the Resolution Plan and the Form H which stipulate the amount of PBG to be utilized as an alternative for payment of the CIRP Cost. Few necessary clauses of the Resolution Plan submitted by the SRA and the Form-H are reproduced below:

The aforesaid clauses of the Resolution Plan, read with Form-H, disclose that the CIRP Costs, payable on actuals, are contemplated to be met either from the Performance Deposit i.e. PBG of Rs. 35 lacs or through upfront infusion by the SRA.

It is noted that such clause is ambiguous, inasmuch as it fails to clearly identify the source from which CIRP Costs are to be discharged. Regulation 36B(4A) of the CIRP Regulations provides for forfeiture or invocation of the Performance Security where the SRA fails to implement the Plan, or contributes to such failure.

Further, the Clause 2.9.2 of the RFRP (refer para no.34), dealing with the PBG Validity Period, inter alia provides that the PBG shall remain valid until all dues payable under the Resolution Plan stand satisfied and discharged, with an additional claim period of 12 months thereafter. Clause 2.9.3 of the RFRP further stipulates that the PBG is to be deposited as security for performance of the Resolution Plan, and shall accordingly be over and above the payments proposed under the Plan, save as otherwise decided by the CoC. This clause clearly delineates the object of the Performance Security as an amount distinct from, and additional to, the total Plan value, and not one intended for utilisation towards payments under the Plan towards CIRP Cost which is to be paid in priority over other payments.

Given that the estimated CIRP Cost under the Plan is Rs.30 lacs, utilisation of the PBG of Rs. 35 lacs towards discharge of such cost would leave only Rs.5 lacs of security available for the entire term of implementation of the Plan. By such utilisation, the very purpose of the Performance Security under Regulation 36B(4A) and the RFRP stands compromised. The PBG whether furnished in cash or otherwise, is intended as security of last resort, to be invoked only in the event of failure to implement the Resolution Plan or in case of successful implementation – to remain valid for the additional timeframe prescribed under the RFRP following implementation. In the present case, however, since the PBG (furnished in cash) is being also proposed to be used on priority towards payment of CIRP Costs, nothing would remain thereof to secure the balance payments due under the Resolution Plan. Such a stipulation is accordingly invalid in law and contrary to Regulation 36B(4A) of the CIRP Regulations as well as Clauses 2.9.2 and 2.9.3 of the RFRP.

Further, Section 30(2)(e) and (f) of the Code casts a duty upon the Resolution Professional to examine every Resolution Plan to confirm that it does not contravene any provision of law for the time being in force, and conforms to such other requirements as may be specified by the IBBI. Clause 9 of the Resolution Plan, for the reasons aforesaid, is accordingly also in violation of Section 30(2)(e) and (f) of the Code.

Additionally, the clause 2.5.2 of the RFRP mentions the following:

The aforesaid clause of the RFRP reserves to the CoC and the RP, the right to reject the Resolution Plan in the event of non-compliance with the RFRP, the CIRP Regulations, or the Code. It is noted, however, that notwithstanding the aforesaid terms of the Resolution Plan being violative of the RFRP and the CIRP Regulations, neither the CoC nor the RP raised any objection thereto, nor considered rejection of the Plan on this ground. Moreover, the Undertaking submitted by the SRA along with the Resolution Plan (refer Annexure- D, Pg. 442 of the IA), mentions in clause 2(k) “Breach of RFRP or this Undertaking will render the Resolution Applicant ineligible to continue in the corporate insolvency resolution process, forfeit any refundable deposit and/or encash the Bid Bond Guarantee and/or Performance Guarantee, and attract penal action under the Code;”. In these circumstances, Clause 9 of the Resolution Plan, insofar as it stipulates utilisation of the PBG/EMD towards payment of CIRP Costs, runs directly contrary to Clause 2.9.3 of the RFRP -a stipulation that the SRA itself undertook to be bound by under Clause 2(k) of the aforesaid Undertaking.

In this regard, we are supported by the judgement in the matter of Bank of Baroda Vs. Formation Textile LLC & Ors, Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 983 & 984 of 2023. The Hon’ble NCLAT has observed as follows:

[Bold for Emphasis]

The above judgement dealt with a clause of Resolution Plan stating adjustment of PBG against first tranche payment. In the above case, the Hon’ble NCLAT held that PBG must be kept alive till 100% implementation of the Resolution Plan and it shall not be set off against any payment to be made by the SRA. Similar to facts in the above case, it is noted that in the present case, the amount of PBG could not have been considered as an alternative for payment of CIRP Cost and it had to continue till complete implementation of the Resolution Plan of the SRA.

Further, on the hearing dated 20.08.2026, this Tribunal had made the following observations:

In accordance with the said direction the Applicant had filed Written Submission dated 22.08.2026. In the said written submission, the Applicant has stated that of the Rs. 6,00,000/- realised from the sale of the Vehicle, Rs. 3,00,000/- was refunded to M/s. Memoir (being an amount received post-CIRP commencement), and the balance was applied towards statutory CIRP expenses, conferring no personal or improper benefit on the SRA.

It is observed that the if Rs.3 lacs out of the total Rs.6 lacs, has been refunded to M/s. Memoir and the rest Rs.3 lacs is said to have been utilised towards CIRP expenses. Further, in the Business and Financial Proposal section of the Resolution Plan, below the financial proposal table produced by the SRA, there is a note which states:

The above said note and the clause 9 of the Resolution Plan (refer para no.43) state that the CIRP Cost has to be paid by the Resolution Applicant at actuals. Now, if said amount of Rs.6 lacs as discussed above, is already utilised in respect of CIRP Costs, then whether it is already factored in the provision of estimated Rs.30 lacs of CIRP Costs in the Resolution Plan for recovering the same from the SRA or not, is not clear. Even if, it is not factored in this estimated amount of Rs.30 lacs, whether it will be recovered additionally from the SRA by adding the said Rs.6 lacs to the estimated cost, remains unexplained.

Further, a reference is made to the discussion between the Applicant (RP), CoC members and the SRA in the 14^th CoC meeting dated 22.05.2025, which is reproduced below:

Referring the above discussion in the 14^th CoC meeting dated 22.05.2025, it is noted that the Applicant has apprised the CoC about net internal accruals in the form of Bank Balance of Corporate Debtor of Rs.3.15 Cr approx. Further, based on the said bank balance of Rs.3.15 Cr of the Corporate Debtor, the SRA enhanced the payment to be made to the creditors under the Plan from Rs. 3.08 Cr to Rs.3.15 Cr in the 14^th CoC meeting. Moreover, it is mentioned in the said Resolution Plan of the SRA, in clause 8 - Note 2 (Annexure “L”, Pg no.406 of the Application):

It becomes imperative to examine whether, in a situation where the Corporate Debtor itself possesses a bank balance of Rs. 3.15 Crores earmarked for utilisation towards payment to Creditors, the CoC applied its mind to, or undertook any meaningful deliberation upon, the feasibility and viability of the Resolution Plan before proceeding to hand over the Corporate Debtor for no consideration. The question that consequently and squarely arises is regarding non- consideration of the fact that the SRA is hardly infusing any funds whatsoever towards the payments under the Resolution Plan.

With respect to the above issue, it is necessary to refer the judgement in the matter of Bank of India & Ors vs. Mr. S Rajendran, IA (IBC) NO. 116 OF 2026 in CP (IB) NO. 2803 of 2019. This Tribunal has in the said matter held that:

The above judgement of this Tribunal, clearly applies to the present case. In the above case, this Tribunal has specifically held that the surplus or internal accrual generated during the CIRP process does not belong to the Resolution Applicant, but to the Insolvency estate of the Corporate Debtor and should be distributed as per section 53 of the Code.

The Section 20 of the Code requires the IRP to protect and preserve the value of the property of the Corporate Debtor and manage its operations as a going concern. In this context, it is observed that the surplus funds generated or accrued during the CIRP process while it is under the control of the RP and supervision of CoC, in accordance with Section 20 of the Code, are not attributable to any effort or contribution on the part of the Resolution Applicant. Thus, we are of the view that the surplus cash flow generated during CIRP period shall be treated as part of the Insolvency Estate of the Corporate Debtor. Accordingly, in the present case, while the amount of Rs. 3.15 Crores is being utilised towards payment to the Creditors, it remains unclear as to the reasons for the CoC having even considered the Resolution Plan of the SRA, when the SRA is not offering any payment whatsoever towards the balance of the admitted claims amounting to Rs. 8,51,41,258/

In view of the issues discussed above (from para no.33 to 61), this Tribunal is of the considered view that, the Resolution Plan approved by the CoC is not in compliance of Section 30(2)(e) & (f) of the Code and is in violation of Regulation 36B(4A), 36B(5) of the CIRP Regulations, 2016 and also certain clauses of its own RFRP and therefore the Resolution Plan is liable for rejection. We are conscious of the proviso for section 31(2), however the issues pointed out hereinabove are not defects curable by rectification. Hence the Resolution Plan submitted by Logenix Services Pvt. Ltd, is rejected.

The consequence of rejection of the Resolution Plan is governed by Section 33(1)(b) of the Code. The said provision reads as follows:

In view of the rejection of the Resolution Plan under Section 31(2) of the Code, and in terms of Section 33(1)(b) of the Code, this Adjudicating Authority is of the considered view that the Corporate Debtor is liable to be liquidated in accordance with the provisions of Chapter III of Part II of the Code and the applicable Regulations. Accordingly, the Corporate Debtor is ordered to be liquidated and the following consequential order is passed:

Accordingly, the I.A. No.90 of 2025 is disposed of.