M/s. Nucleus Premium Properties Private Limited

Per: Coram

M/s Nucleus Premium Properties Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘Corporate Debtor’ or ‘CD’) was admitted for Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process ((hereinafter referred to as ‘CIRP’) by this Tribunal on 18.11.2021 in CP(IB)/1/KOB/2021.

IA(IBC)/325/KOB/2023 is filed under section 30(60) and section 31 of the Code for the approval of the Resolution Plan. All the remaining Interlocutory Applications are filed by the homebuyers/allotees of the Corporate Debtor for the relief either to reject the resolution plan or to send back the Resolution Plan to the Committee of Creditors (hereinafter referred as ‘CoC’) for reconsideration or reject the Resolution Plan for non-compliance of Section 30(2) of the Code or to declare the voting of the Resolution Plan submitted by the Resolution Applicant as null and void and to intervene in the application filed by Respondent as IA (IBC)/325/KOB/2023. Since common issues and questions of laws are raised in all these above applications, they have been taken up together and a common order is passed.

This application is filed under section 30(60) and section 31 of the Code for the approval of a resolution Plan in respect of M/s Nucleus Premium Properties Private Limited, the Corporate Debtor. The Resolution Professional filed the present application on 01.08.2023 for approval of the Resolution Plan, which was approved by the CoC with a 100 per cent in its 12^th CoC held on 28/07/2023.

The facts as narrated in the application are summarised hereunder:

The underlying Company Petition CP(IBC)/01/KOB/2021, filed by Mr Anoop John & 3 others against the Corporate Debtor under Section 7 of the Code, was admitted by this Tribunal and Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process initiated against the Corporate Debtor on 18.11.2021. Mr Dileep K P, IBBI/1PA/IP-001/IP01310/2018-2019/12220 was appointed as the Interim Resolution Professional (hereinafter referred to as ‘IRP’). The CoC in its first meeting held on 30.12.2021 decided to appoint the IRP as the Resolution Professional (‘RP’).

The Corporate Debtor has been undertaking Real Estate Projects which were delayed and under various stages of construction. The RP admitted 238 claims till 90 days which is the maximum period allowed for submission of claims as follows:

The constitution of CoC consists of 199 homebuyers with a 98.75% voting share and one financial creditor, State Bank of India with a 1.25% voting share. Homebuyers are represented by the Authorised Representative, Mr Mohan TS, an Insolvency Professional approved by this NCLT on 17.02.2022.

The CIRP began on 18.11.2021, with an extension of 330 days due to an influx of homebuyer claims and the impact of the Covid third wave. During this period, two bids were received, one from the Ex-promoter/suspended director, but no Resolution Plan was submitted. After issuing a second Expression of Interest (EOI), a draft Resolution Plan by Mr. Sumit Khanna was rejected in the 6th CoC meeting with 100% voting rights. Subsequently, project-wise resolution proposals were sought and approved by the Tribunal on 04.11.2022.

In the 8th CoC on 14.11.2022, decided that the Resolution Professional to publish one more Form G inviting EOI. Two EOIs were received from M/s Buildwell and M/s BR Nirman. Despite satisfying eligibility criteria under Section 29A of the Code, the project-wise Resolution Plan submitted by Raymound Project, Riva Apartments, and Eleganza Projects initially did not comply with mandatory provisions. After modifications and resubmission, both Resolution Plans were subject to homebuyer negotiations from 18.01.2023 to 22.01.2023, followed by e-voting from 28.01.2023 to 29.01.2023.

In the voting results, Plan A (Buildwell) received 41.99% in favor, while Plan B (BR Nirman) had 0.87% approval. Due to the failure of Plan A in a re-voting attempt, the Tribunal ordered liquidation on 17.03.2023 vide IA(IBC)/74/KOB/2023. While the liquidation process was going on, Raymount and Riva Project Allottees Association along with a group of home allottees have preferred an appeal in Hon’ble NCLAT Chennai against the order of liquidation, in which the Hon’ble NCLAT ordered to keep the order of liquidation in abeyance, and the CoC was directed to reconsider the modified Resolution Plan by M/s Buildwell.

The modified Resolution Plan by M/s Buildwell underwent voting on 26.07.2023 to 27.07.2023, with 78.19% of home allottees voting in favor. The 12th CoC on 28.07.2023 voted in favour of the Resolution Plan with 100% voting.

As per the order of Hon’ble NCLAT, the order of Liquidation remains suspended till 02.08.2023. This application was filed by the Resolution Professional for the approval of the Resolution Plan on 01.08.2023.

The Successful Resolution Applicant had duly accepted the ‘Letter of Intent’ which was issued by the Resolution Professional as per the provisions of RFRP on 28.07.2023.

The Successful Resolution Applicant has provided a cash security deposit of Rs 26,16,035/- (Rupees twenty-six lakhs sixteen thousand and thirty-five only) in the designated Resolution Account, copy of bank statement evidencing the same attested by SBI, Edapally Branch has been produced as Annexure E.

The Applicant has submitted the details of various compliances as envisaged by the Code and the CIRP Regulations which a Resolution Plan is required to adhere to, as follows:

As required by Section 30(1) read with Regulation 39(1)(a) of the CIRP Regulations, the Applicant submits that the Resolution Applicant has submitted a certificate of eligibility under Section 29A of the Code vide notarized affidavit dated 29.11.2022. In terms of Regulation 39(1)(c) of the CIRP Regulations, an undertaking has been submitted by the successful Resolution Applicant, disclosed on page 99 of the application.

The applicant has filed a Compliance Certificate in prescribed form i.e., Form "H" in compliance with regulation 39(4) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) regulations 2016, along with copy of Bank statement of receipt of performance security as required under regulation 36B(4A) is produced as Annexure E.

The Successful Resolution Applicant will bring in Rs 2,61,60,347/-(Rs. Two crores Sixty-One lakhs Sixty Thousand and three hundred and forty-seven only) towards the total Resolution amount which will be paid as follows.

Resolution Professional further hereby confirm as follows with regard to the mandatory contents of the resolution Plan in terms of sub section 2 of section 30 of lBC, 2016.

Upon the Effective Date the Resolution Applicant shall hold the properties and assets of the Corporate Debtor in trust for the Financial Creditors of the company. The Resolution Applicant shall supervise the implementation of the plan and do all such acts, deeds, matters and things as may be necessary, desirable, or expedient in order to implement or give effect to this plan in accordance with its terms. The Resolution Applicant shall act under the supervision of the respective Project Monitoring Committee in case of the construction & handing over of the under-constructed Apartments & Villas.

On and from the Effective Date the Resolution Applicant shall take over the management of the Nucleus Premium Properties Private Limited and shall acquire the management control inter alia by taking the following measures:

The Resolution Professional further submitted that the contents of the Resolution Plan submitted by the Resolution Applicants were found to comply with the provisions of the Code and various regulations thereunder

The applicants are the allottees of the Nucleus Raymond Villa Project of the Corporate Debtor. There are 14 villas on this project, seven villas are nearing completion, land of five among them is registered in the name of allottees. The applicants are the allottees and registered holders of land in their name. The main contention of the applicants is that to canvass the voting share of the majority stakeholders, the resolution applicant came up with the present new plan allowing a 27.84 percent discount to allottees of the Apartment and 12.47 percent discount to the allottees of villas on the receivables, reduction of this account resulted in unfair and unequal distribution of assets of the Corporate Debtor to a class of purchasers who have same footing with others is against the statutory rights of dissatisfied purchasers granted under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

Also stated that the Resolution Professional failed to take care of the properties of the CD and the obligation of the CD viz-a-viz the Resolution Professional as a trustee of its properties agreed to be sold in the capacity as a seller of immovable properties which are imposed upon them u/s 55(1)(e) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 r/w section 15 of the Trust Act and the same got discharged without due process of law. And stated that the overall scheme of the resolution plan violates the statutory rights of the Purchasers guaranteed under the Code, Indian Contract Act, 1872, Trust Act and Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

Respondent no 2 filed counter stating that the Applicants herein voted for the Resolution Plan and stated that a it is clear from the Resolution Plan that a uniform 5 percent escalation has been applied to the agreed construction cost and the cost of completion shall be divided only amongst the 38 apartment allotees on a pro-rata basis i.e., Rs1,245/- per square foot and further stated that receivables due from the apartment allottees have been deducted from the total construction cost and only the balance amount has been distributed on a pro-rata basis to prevent any undue advantage to any allotees. Cost of competition of common amenities has been spilt between Apartment and Villas allottees using objective metric. The receivables to be paid by the allottees as per the Resolution Plan are in line with the findings of the Special Receivables Audit and no discount on the same has been offered on the same to any of the allottees.

The applicants are the allottees/homebuyers of Nucleus Heyday Villa Project which was constructed by the Corporate Debtor. The grievance of the applicants is that construction of their villas/houses are almost complete and is registered in their name, they are required to pay additional amounts for balance construction work and if they fail to comply, the Resolution Applicant will automatically have the right to seize and sell their properties. The Clause 5.5.2.5.1 in the resolution plan allowing the resolution applicant to automatically cancel registration is absolutely illegal and untenable and that becomes a direct violation right to property under Article 300A of the Constitution of India, hence the Resolution Plan is in contravention of Section 30(2)(e) of the Code.

Respondent no 1 filed counter stating that the application is bad for the non-joinder of proper and necessary parties. Further stated that the contention raised by the applicants is a gross misrepresentation of the Resolution Plan and stated that the sale would be contingent on the repeated non-payment of the amounts due by the applicants and there is no ‘’automatic” cancellation of their allotments, all steps proposed to be taken will be as per the applicable laws.

Respondent no 2 in his counter stated that the applicant does not have locus standi to challenge the Resolution Plan. The statutory right to challenge the Resolution Plan arises u/s 61(3) of the Code, only when the adjudicating authority approves the Resolution Plan. Even if the Applicants are aggrieved by the approval of the Resolution Plan, remedy lies before the Hon’ble NCLAT.

As both the Interlocutory Applications (herein after referred as IA) are having similar facts, pleadings are considered together. The Applicants in both the IA are homebuyers/allottees of Nucleus Riva Apartments which was being constructed by the Corporate Debtor. The Applicants in IA(IBC)/349/KOB/2023 had jointly entered into an agreement for sale and construction with the Corporate Debtor for the purchase of Apartment No. ‘2C’ and the Applicants in IA(IBC)/348/KOB/2023 had jointly entered into an agreement for sale and construction with the Corporate Debtor for the purchase of Apartment No. ‘1C’ and stated that the applicants in both the IA’s had duly filed their claim in liquidation much before the 2^nd respondent had filed their resolution plan on 20.07.2023 circulated to the CoC on 22.07.2023. Hence, the 2^nd Respondent had erred in not considering the claim filed by them. Also, the Resolution Applicant proposes the following resolution of their claims against the under-construction Apartments: -

The Applicant in both the applications further submitted that there is a deemed admission of the claim of the Applicants for the fact that the 2nd Respondent proposes to pay 50% of the amount paid by the Applicants and stated that the Applicants herein cannot offer a different treatment to allottees who have not submitted their claim from allottees who have filed their claim, this differential treatment for the Applicants herein have directly contravened Regulation 36 of the IBBI.

The construction of the Applicants apartments is almost complete, they are required to pay additional amounts under the guise of payments for balance construction work and if they fail to comply, the Resolution Applicant will automatically have the right to seize their properties and sell it to any other person. Apart from this, the Resolution Plan is also unlawful due to failure to address payments of statutory dues including dues of the GST department, among others. In this regard, the applicant submits that the present Resolution Plan contravenes the provisions of law for the time being in force and is therefore in direct contravention of S. 30(2) of the I&B Code and challenges the overall viability of the Resolution Plan.

In IA(IBC)/349/KOB/2023 Respondent No.1 in his reply stated that verifying affidavit filed in support of the Application has been signed by one Mr Benilal Balakrishnan s/o Balakrishnan Nanu, i.e. neither of the Applicants. Furthermore. the only Power of Attorney filed with this is dated 06.10.2017 and does not authorise Mr Benilal Balakrishnan to file the instant Application or, for that matter, represent the principals therein in any judicial proceedings hence the Application for non-joinder of proper and necessary parties.

And stated that the Applicants submitted their claim in Form D with the respondent in his capacity as the Liquidator, thereafter the Respondent No.1 has not received any claims from the Applicants herein. The only communication received in connection with the Applicants was vide email dated 21.08.2023, which was sent by the Counsel for the Applicants and not by the Applicants themselves almost a month after the approval of CoC and 650 days after the CIRP order and no explanation is provided by the Applicants herein for their failure to file their claims during the Resolution process.

Respondent No.1 further stated that Resolution Plan provides for a partial refund to such allottees despite the fact that they have not submitted any claim and no special treatment for such individuals. Also, the Resolution Professional has the power under the code to receive accept and/or reject claims filed by potential creditors. There is no statutory provision allowing for the "deemed admission" of any claims.

In IA(IBC)/348/KOB/2023 Respondent No.1 in his counter stated that in the records of the Corporate the current allottees of Apartment No, ‘1C’ stands allotted to Mr. Rajesh Raman Thottupura and Mrs Rajani Raman. The names of the Applicants herein Mrs Rajani SunilKumar and Mr Sunil Kumar cannot be found in the records of Corporate Debtor.

Respondent No. 1 further stated that no claim has been filed by the Applicants in IA(IBC)/348/KOB/2023, be it for resolution or liquidation. The only communication received in connection with the Applicants was vide email dated 21.08.2023, which was sent by the Counsel for the Applicants and not by the Applicants themselves almost a month after the approval of CoC and 650 days after the CIRP order.

Respondent No. 2 filed counter in both the IA’s stating that the intention of the applicants is to put the Corporate Debtor into Liquidation, the Applicant has not stated any reason for not filing the claim during CIRP, also stated that the Applicants are not having locus standi to seek a relief to reject a plan which is approved by the CoC and raise a contention of non-compliance u/s 30(2) when they are not a claimant in the CIRP and to challenge a Resolution Plan which is yet to be approved by the Adjudicating Authority.

As the contentions and grievances in these three IA’s are almost same, pleadings are considered together. The Applicants in IA(IBC)/351/KOB/2023 and IA(IBC)/363/KOB/2023 are homebuyers of Aura Villa Project of the Corporate Debtor. The Applicant in IA(IBC)/485/KOB/2023 is one of the homebuyers of Riva Villa Project.

As per the agreement for sale and construction agreements, the date of completion of the construction was in 2016. But the Corporate Debtor failed to complete the construction of the project within the prescribed time period even after collecting 95% of the payment from them. In light of the completion of the construction by Applicants themselves, even before the initiation of CIRP, the obligation of the Applicants with respect to the balance 5% payment is discharged. There is no payment obligation that can be legitimately claimed from the Applicants herein.

The Applicants stated that the Resolution Professional failed to disclose actual state of the project in the Information memorandum as the construction of the Aura villa project of the applicants were mostly complete prior to the commencement of the CIRP Resolution Professional was fully aware of the actual status of the project. However, the Resolution Professional failed to capture the same in the Information Memorandum due to the mala fide or negligent act of the Resolution Professional. Apart from that the Resolution Plan approved by the CoC, intends to take away the ownership of the applicants to their villas, if they have not made the payment of first trance. The Code does not grant any authority to the Resolution Professional or to the successful Resolution Applicant to take away the ownership of the applicant.

To those Allottees who do not wish to join the Resolution Process, the Resolution Applicant proposes to refund 50% of the Amount the Allottee had paid to the Corporate Debtor as part of the Allotment of the Villa to them. The proposed 50% of the amount paid will be refunded only after cancellation of allotment and registration and the subsequent sale of such Villa by the Resolution Applicant. To claim the 50% amount paid by them, the Allottee shall submit Proof of their Allotment and Proof of Bank Payments done by them to the Bank Account of the Corporate Debtor, along with other proof of payment if any to the Chairman of the Project 32 Monitoring Committee and the decision shall be final on the submitted proofs. And in the case of allottees whose Villa land is registered fails to pay the receivable amount to the Corporate Debtor, steps will be taken for cancellation of the allotment and if required cancellation of the registration itself as per law will be initiated. After cancellation, the Resolution Applicant proposes to refund 50% of the Amount the Allottee had paid to the Corporate Debtor which will be refunded only after the subsequent sale of such Villa by the Resolution Applicant.

And further stated that the Applicants are the absolute owners of their respective villas and the construction of the villas was almost complete before the initiation of the CIRP thus the applicants have the legitimate legal right to their property. Therefore, the Resolution Plan which calls for the cancellation of Allotment, upon the non-compliance of terms set by the Plan is in contravention of Article 300 A of the Constitution of India.

The Applicants further contented that the Committee of Creditors has not deliberated upon the feasibility and viability of the Resolution Plan as the Regulation 39(3)(b) Insolvency and Bankruptcy board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 the CoC is supposed to record its deliberations on the feasibility and viability of each resolution plan.

Moreover, the Resolution Applicant has not even mentioned its GSTIN in its Resolution Plan. Also, the address mentioned in the Resolution Plan is not the existing office address of the Resolution Applicant. The Resolution Applicant doesn’t even have a website hence the Resolution Applicant has not placed on record anything to prove its capacity to revive multiple projects of the Corporate Debtor at the same time.

Respondents No. 1 and 3 filed replies stating that the IA’s are defective as IA(IBC)/351/KOB/2023 has been filed by 12 Applicants but the affidavit accompanying the application is signed only by the Applicant No. 1, Dr Jose Paul. There is no accompanying Power of Attorney or Authorisation Letters in favour of Applicant No.1 thus the Application becomes defective, similarly in IA(IBC)/363/KOB/2023 also, the Application is filed by 10 Applicants and the affidavit is signed by the Applicant No.1, Mr Ajil V A and no authorization on behalf of other Applicants hence application becomes defective.

And stated that at the time of initiation of CIRP, Resolution Professional conducted an inspection of the Projects and issued necessary directions to the Villa allottees. Subsequently a stop memo was issued to the Applicants herein which was challenged by the Applicants No 1 to 7 in IA(IBC)/351/KOB/2023 vide IA(IBC)/131/KOB/2023 and IA(IBC)/132/KOB/2023 which was dismissed by this Tribunal. The admission that the villas under this project was completed by them is an admission of contempt on their part and stated that the costs due from the Applicants pertain to both the construction rights vested with the Corporate Debtor, the corresponding receivables, and, further, the receivables due from them for the common areas of the project.

The Applicants failed to show what information pertaining to the actual state of the project was not disclosed in the Information Memorandum also stated that the Applicants wish to avoid having to pay the receivables that are owed by them.

Also stated that the Resolution Plan approved by the CoC does not automatically take away ownership of the applicants without due process of law, any cancellation of allotment and registration will be initiated as per law thus it cannot be said to be against Article 300A of the Constitution of India and relevant provisions of the Code, Rules and Regulations. And stated that the Applicants are not the absolute owners of their respective villas. The ownership of their respective villas is very much contingent on their payments of the receivables and common construction cost, hence cannot be said absolute.

And further stated that the deliberations of the CoC on the feasibility and viability can be found by perusing paragraphs 3. D, E, F, G and H of the application. Even though there is lack of reference to the specific words, there is no requirement that there be an explicit reference to the word’s ‘feasibility’ and ‘viability’. And stated that the averment with respect to the address mentioned by the Resolution Applicant not being its existing office address is unsubstantiated by any document placed on record by the Applicants, also stated that the lack of a website on the part of the Resolution Applicant is not a material factor under the Code, Rules and Regulations.

The applicant engaged M/s Insight Media City India Private Limited for "LOGO BRANDING" on the 24 News channel, broadcasting advertisements from January 2019 to May 2019 and subsequently from July 2019 to January 2020. The agreed fees were Rs 45,00,000 plus tax and Rs 48,00,000 plus tax, respectively. Although the applicant fulfilled the contract conditions, an outstanding balance of Rs 61,72,000/- remains after a partial payment of Rs 31,28,000/-.

Following this, the respondent became the appointed liquidator. The applicant filed their claim in Form C of Rs. 75,87,694/- (Principal- Rs.61,72,000 + Rs. 14,15,694) on 04.07.2023, consisting of the principal amount and additional charges. The respondent, via email on 04.07.2023 and 19.07.2023, contended that the claim, filed 106 days from the liquidation commencement date, is inadmissible.

The applicant asserts its rightful entitlement as a creditor and emphasizes the necessity for the claimed amount to be reflected in the Corporate Debtor's accounts, attributing the claim's delay to unintentional reasons.

The respondent filed the reply stating that the supporting affidavit is defective on grounds of material suppression of facts and misrepresentation of dates. Also, in the absence of any contractual or statutory obligation, the Respondent is not bound to make any payment.

The respondent further stated that this application was filed on or after 19^th July 2023 on knowledge of the proceedings of liquidation being stayed by the Hon’ble NCLAT on 13^th July 2023 and the Applicant has not cited any reason sufficient or otherwise for the delay in filing the claim on 106^th day from the date of liquidation commencement date.

Also stated that the CD is currently in CIRP and the relief sought is directing the Respondent to accept a liquidation claim in Form C is infructuous.

We have heard the submissions made by the counsel for all the parties and perused the materials available on record. During the course of hearing, this Tribunal directed the CoC to consider the aspects 1. The CoC is directed to reconsider the question of feasibility and viability of Plan 2. The CoC will relook into the matter concerning the compliance of the resolution plan with Section 30(2) of the Code, particularly with regard to the annulment of the registration of the land deeds of the homebuyers. 3. The CoC shall reconsider the question as to whether the Resolution Applicant is capable of implementing the Plan to the extent of his net worth, and to file a report on the same. In compliance of the above direction the Resolution Professional filed the following report on 11/01/2024 vide IA(IBC)/19/KOB/2024.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in K. Sashidhar v. Indian Overseas Bank & Others in Civil Appeal No. 10673/2018 held that the discretion of the adjudicating authority (NCLT) is circumscribed by Section 31 limited to scrutiny of the resolution plan “as approved” by the requisite percent 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.

In the case of Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Limited vs. Satish Kumar Gupta, in Civil Appeal Nos. 8766-8767 of 2019 it was held that.

It is emphasized that upon approval of a resolution plan by the CoC the Adjudicating Authority's obligation under Section 31 of the Code is to confirm that the plan fulfils the requirements outlined in subsections (2) and (4) of Section 30. Additionally, the Adjudicating Authority is barred from interfering with the commercial wisdom of the CoC. The Hon’ble Apex Court has consistently upheld that the CoC's commercial wisdom should be given paramount importance, without any judicial interference, to ensure the timely completion of the prescribed processes under the IBC.

Hence, when evaluated with the aforementioned facts and legal precedents, we believe that the CoC has duly considered the feasibility and viability of the Plan, and other compliance under Section 30(2) of the Code. Consequently, the Resolution Plan meets the stipulated requirements of the Code and relevant regulations. Moreover, the Resolution Plan is in conformity with the law and does not violate any provisions of Section 29A of the Code.

We are further relying on Ghanshyam Mishra and Sons Private Limited v/s Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited, where the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that on the date of approval of the 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 a part of the Resolution Plan.

Additionally, the Hon’ble NCLAT Principal Bench, in Sunil Chauhan v Rabindra Kumar Mintri, upheld the order of NCLT Delhi, in rejecting the claim with an 800-day delay by the Resolution Professional.

Moreover, we are particularly emphasizing on judicial precedents where the Apex Court had already taken a view that no claims can be entertained after the approval of the resolution plan by the CoC. The postponement of claim filings and the adjudicating process for granting condonation of delays significantly impede the Code's ability to achieve its objectives of ensuring a timely process. Hence this Tribunal is not entertaining any claims put forward by the respective Applicants herein for rejection of the Resolution Plan at this stage and also all the claims filed beyond the stipulated time period and deemed claims we do not find any justifiable reasons to be admitted.

In Jaypee Kensington Boulevard Apartments Welfare Association & Ors v NBCC (India) Ltd & Ors, where Supreme Court held that:

Based on the series of judgments from the Hon’ble Apex Court clarifying the scope of the Approval of Resolution Plan, it's evident that the Adjudicating Authority's judicial review is limited under the provisions of the Code and this Adjudicating Authority cannot venture into the commercial aspects of the decision taken by the CoC.

This Tribunal notes that the Resolution Plan submitted the Resolution Applicant in accordance with Sections 30 and 31 of the Code and also complies with Regulations 38 and 39 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016. No circumstances exist that militate against grant of approval for the Resolution Plan. Thus, the Application filed by the Resolution Professional is hereby approved.

The Resolution Applicant prays for the following reliefs and concessions to be granted to the Corporate Debtor and/or the Resolution Applicant, the orders thereon are indicated against each.

Therefore, subject to the observations made, this Resolution Plan shall form part of this Order.

The Resolution Plan attached with this order shall become effective from the date of this order and shall form part of this order. The Resolution Plan as approved is binding on the Corporate Debtor, Creditors and others involved so that the revival of the Corporate Debtor can come into force with immediate effect.

The Moratorium imposed under section 14 shall cease to have effect from the date of this order.

In case of non-compliance of this order or withdrawal of the Resolution Plan, the CoC shall forfeit the Performance Guarantee amount already paid by the Resolution Applicant.

The RP shall stand discharged from his duties with effect from the date of this Order. He shall, however, perform his duties in terms of the Resolution Plan as approved by this Adjudicating Authority.

The Resolution Applicant shall have access to all the Corporate Debtor’s records, documents, assets and premises with effect from the date of this Order, to finalize the further line of action required for starting the business operations of the Corporate Debtor.

The Resolution Applicant shall file a copy of this Order with the Registrar of Companies, Kochi, inter alia for updating the status of the Corporate Debtor.

The Application being IA (IBC)/325/KOB/2023 is allowed, and all the connected interlocutory applications bearing IA(IBC)/349/KOB/2023, IA(IBC)/348/KOB/2023, IA(IBC)/351/KOB/2023, IA(IBC)/363/KOB/2023, IA(IBC)/381/KOB/2023, IA(IBC)/324/KOB/2023, IA(IBC)/485/KOB/2023, IA(IBC)/360/KOB/2023 filed in Company Petition CP(IB)/01/KOB/2021 ere dismissed and disposed of accordingly.

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

Additionally, the Registry shall send a copy of this order to the Registrar of Companies, Ernakulam, Kerala.

Certified Copy of this order may be issued, if applied for, upon compliance of all requisite formalities