Northern ARC Capital Limited vs Shivpriya Cables Private Limited

I.A. No. 53/2025: The present application has been preferred by Mr. Sanjeev Chaudhary, Resolution Professional qua Shivpriya Cables Private Limited (hereinafter, referred to as the 'Applicant/RP') under Section 30(6) of IBC, 2016, seeking the following reliefs:

Stating succinctly, the CP(IB) No. 437/ND/2023 was filed by Northern ARC Capital Limited (hereinafter, referred to as the “Financial Creditor”) seeking initiation of CIRP qua Shivpriya Cables Private Limited (hereinafter, referred to as the “Corporate Debtor”) in terms of the provision of Section 7 of IBC, 2016 r/w Rule 4 of the I & B (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016. The Corporate Debtor was admitted to CIRP in terms of order dated 07.12.2023 passed by this Tribunal and Mr. Kanti Mohan Rustagi (hereinafter, referred to as the “erstwhile RP”) was appointed as IRP. The Corporate Debtor is currently represented through its RP, Mr. Sanjeev Chaudhary, i.e. the Applicant here in the present application.

As per the provisions of Section 15 of the Code r/w Regulation 6(1) of the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016, the erstwhile RP issued a Public Announcement in Form - A on 15.12.2023 in two newspapers, viz. Financial Express (English) and Jansatta (Hindi), inviting claims with proof thereof from the creditors of the Corporate Debtor. As per the aforementioned Form - A, the last date for submission of claim was 27.12.2023. A copy of the aforementioned Public Announcement is enclosed as Annexure No. A-2 to the application.

Subsequently, on receipt of claims pursuant to aforementioned Public Announcement, the erstwhile RP constituted the Committee of Creditors (CoC) in terms of the provision of Section 21 of the Code and the first meeting of the CoC was held on 10.01.2024 wherein Mr. Kanti Mohan Rustagi was appointed as the RP qua CD.

In the second meeting of the CoC held on 30.01.2024, the CoC passed resolution for replacement of Mr. Kanti Mohan Rustagi with Mr. Sanjeev Chaudhary and the resolution was approved with 95.70% vote share. Subsequently, this Tribunal in terms of order dated 28.02.2024 confirmed the appointment of Mr. Sanjeev Chaudhary as the RP qua CD.

The Applicant/ RP filed I.A. No. 2731/2024 to place the re-constituted CoC on record, which was allowed by this Tribunal in terms of order dated 03.06.2024. The details of the members of the re-constituted CoC, as given in the aforementioned application, reads thus: -

According to the RP in the third meeting of the CoC held on 16.02.2024, the CoC approved the advertisement for Invitation of Expression of Interest (EoI) in terms of Regulation 36A of CIRP Regulations, 2016. Consequently, on 20.02.2024, the erstwhile IRP published Form- G, which is enclosed as Annexure A-07 to the application.

In the application, the RP has submitted that in response to the aforementioned publication in Form- G, EoIs were received from the following three Prospective Resolution Applicants (PRAs): -

I. Consortium of HR Commercials Private Limited, Sunrise Industries and Crown Steels;

II. Consortium of Rajesh Punia, Atul Kumar Garg, and Rajesh Kumar Agarwal;

III. Consortium of UV Stressed Assets Management Private Limited and Promod Sharma.

The list of PRAs has been enclosed as Annexure No. 9 to the application.

The Applicant/RP has further stated that in the 5^th meeting of the CoC held on 13.05.2024, the CoC was informed that the three PRAs had submitted the resolution plans along with EMD of Rs. 50 Lakhs to the RP as per Section 25(h) of IBC, 2016. It was decided by the CoC with 94.5% approval that the period of CIRP be extended by a period of 90 days i.e. from 10.06.2024 to 08.09.2024. Consequently, the I.A. No. 2915 of 2024 was filed to this effect by the Applicant/ RP, which was allowed by this Tribunal in terms of the order dated 10.06.2024.

It has been averred in the I.A. that during the 5^th meeting of the CoC, the appointment of registered valuers under Regulation 27 of CIRP Regulations, 2016 was also discussed and the committee passed the resolution for appointment of ‘GTech Valuers Private Limited’ and ‘ValueEdge Valuation Private Limited’ as registered valuers. As per the valuation report submitted by the registered valuers under Regulation 35 of CIRP Regulations, 2016, the average fair value and average liquidation value of the assets of the CD are Rs. 9,54,27,337/- and Rs. 6,54,46,170/- respectively. Relevant excerpt of the application giving details of the valuation report reads thus: -

The Applicant/ RP has submitted that in the 8^th meeting of the CoC held on 27.08.2024, the CoC passed a resolution extending the CIRP period from 07.09.2024 to 06.11.2024 with 94.69% vote share. To this effect, the I.A. No. 4430 of 2024 was filed by the Applicant/ RP before this Tribunal and the same was allowed in terms of order dated 12.09.2024.

It is borne out of the pleadings that in the 9^th meeting of the CoC held on 05.11.2024, the CoC passed a resolution for extending the CIRP period by 60 days i.e. from 08.11.2024 to 05.01.2025 and to this effect, the I.A. No. 5461 of 2024 was filed by the Applicant/ RP before this Tribunal. On 26.03.2025 i.e. after filing of the captioned I.A., this Tribunal allowed I.A. No. 5461/2024 and the CIRP period stood extended till 08.01.2025.

In the application, it is averred that in the 10^th meeting of the CoC held on 02.01.2025, the Applicant/ RP placed the resolution plans before the CoC for approval. It is further stated by the RP that the PRA had deposited Rs. 50 Lakhs as performance security. It is also stated in the application that the CoC discussed that if the plan was not approved, then the committee would discuss the sale of CD as going concern as also the liquidation costs qua CD in the next meeting. Subsequently, the e-voting could take place from 03.01.2025(10 am) till 8 06.01.2025(8 pm) in terms of Regulation 25 r/w Regulation 26 of the CIRP Regulations, 2016 and as per the result of e-voting, the plan submitted by the Consortium of Rajesh Kumar Agarwal, Atul Kumar Garg and Rajbeer Punia (hereinafter, referred to as the “Successful Resolution Applicant”) was approved in terms of Section 30(4) of the Code with 94.69% voting share. The aforesaid factual developments has been noted in paras 26-27 of the application, which reads thus: -

The application also reveals that the SRA, as per the RFRP documents dated 26.03.2024 and in terms of Regulation 39(4) of CIRP Regulations, 2016, submitted a Performance Security of Rs. 50,00,000/- via RTGS. It is further averred that after acceptance of the resolution plan submitted by SRA, a Letter of Intent was issued to it on 04.01.2025. The Applicant/ RP has enclosed copies of the Performance Bank Guarantee as also the Letter of Intent as Annexure No. 22 to the application.

During the pendency of the Resolution Plan application, IA-5492/2024 was filed regarding the admission of claims by the Operational Creditors. The same was allowed by this Tribunal vide order dated 26.03.2025, along with an extension of the CIRP period till 08.01.2025. The amount proposed by the Resolution Applicant is as follows:

The Applicant filed IA 09/2025 for approval of the Resolution Plan submitted by the SRA, which stands approved by the CoC. However, in terms of order dated 01.08.2025, this Tribunal observed that in some parts of the Resolution Plan it was mentioned that the “amount provided” therein would be distributed, while in other parts it is indicated that the “admitted amount” would be distributed. Although in both places the specific amounts are mentioned, making it clear that the same amount would be distributed, nonetheless this Tribunal sought certain clarifications and directed the Applicant to rectify the inconsistency by replacing the words “admitted claim” with the expression “provided in the plan.” In view of that order, the plan was remitted back to the CoC for re-examination so as to enable the RP/SRA to rectify the clerical error and file a fresh application under Section 30(6) of the Code.

Thereafter, the Revised Resolution Plan submitted by the SRA was filed through a fresh application i.e., IA 53/2025, which was approved by the CoC in its 12th meeting held on 13.08.2025. A copy of the Revised Resolution Plan is enclosed as Annexure 32 to the present application.

The compliance certificate in prescribed Form- H, in terms of Regulation 39(4) of the CIRP Regulations, 2016, has been filed by RP and enclosed as Annexure No. 28 to the application.

The Applicant/ RP has submitted in the Form- H the realisable amount and its details. The relevant excerpt of revised Form- H reads thus:-

As can be seen from the above table, the secured financial creditors would be paid a sum of Rs. 9,03,72,531/- against the admitted claim of about Rs. 53,20,41,598/-. Furthermore, the unsecured financial creditors would be paid a sum of Rs. 14,92,961/- against the admitted claim of about Rs. 2,98,59,219.26/-. With respect to employees and workmen, no claim was filed before the Applicant/ RP. With regard to statutory/ government dues, against the admitted claim of Rs. 18,06,090/, the SRA proposes to pay Rs. 18,06,090/- i.e. 100% of the admitted claim. Furthermore, the Applicant/ RP had also admitted a claim of Rs. 18,42,86,857.77 qua other operational creditors (other than workmen & employees) and the SRA proposed to pay Rs. 18,42,869/- against such claim. Apart from above, the SRA proposed to pay Rs.14,85,549/- against the other debts and dues- unpaid CIRP cost. Thus, against the total admitted claim of Rs.74,79,93,764.58/-, the SRA has proposed to pay Rs.9,70,00,000/- under the plan.

The compliance of the Resolution Plan with the provisions of the Code as well as the Regulations made thereunder, as stated in Form H, reads thus: -

The compliance of Regulation 37 of CIRP Regulations, 2016, has been dealt with at page 41-42 of the resolution, the relevant excerpt which reads thus: -

As per Section 30(1) of the Code, a resolution applicant needs to submit, along with the resolution plan, an affidavit under Section 29A of the Code to the RP, stating therein that he is not ineligible to submit the plan. In this regard, the affidavit under Section 29A of the Code has been submitted by each of the three consortium members of the SRA viz. Mr. Atul Kumar Garg, Mr. Rakesh Kumar Agarwal and Mr. Rajbeer Punia and the affidavits are enclosed as Annexure No. 31 to the application. In the affidavit, the each of the consortium members have declared that they are not disqualified from submitting the resolution plan. Since all the three affidavits are pari materia, the relevant excerpt from the affidavit filed by Mr. Atul Kumar Garg is reproduced herein below for reference: -

At clause VI of the resolution plan, the SRA has stated that the source of fund for the resolution plan would be the net owned funds of the SRA. Further, said clause also deals with distribution of funds and the timeline within which the payment shall be made to various stakeholders. The clause VI of the plan reads thus: -

Regulation 38(1B) of CIRP Regulations, 2016 provides that a Resolution Plan shall include a statement giving details as to whether the SRA or any of its related parties have failed to implement or contributed to the failure of implementation of any other resolution plan approved by the Adjudicating Authority at any time in the past. In this regard, a declaration has been given by the SRA at page 18 of the plan, which reads thus: -

Regulation 38(2)(a) of CIRP Regulations, 2016 provides that the plan should contain provisions for the term of the plan and its implementation schedule. In this respect, clause (C) stated at page 18 of the plan states that its implementation shall commence immediately from the date of receipt of the order of approval of resolution plan by this Tribunal. Further, the implementation schedule of the resolution plan is given at Clause X(5) of the plan. The relevant excerpt of the plan capturing the aforesaid details reads thus: -

As per Regulation 38(2)(b) of CIRP Regulations, 2016, the Resolution Plan should provide for the management and control of the business of the Corporate Debtor during its term. In this regard, reference may be made to Clause X(6) of the plan which reads thus: -

Further, as per Regulation 38(2)(c) of said Regulations, the plan should also provide for adequate means for supervising its implementation. In this regard, it is apt to refer to Clause X(9) of the plan, which reads thus:

As per Regulation 38(2)(d) of the CIRP Regulations, 2016, a resolution plan shall provide the manner in which the proceedings with respect to avoidance transactions and fraudulent/ wrongful trading is to be pursued and the manner in which the proceeds, if any, from such proceedings shall be distributed. In this regard, it is apposite to refer to Clause X(8) of the plan which reads thus: -

Furthermore, in Form - H, the Applicant/ RP has mentioned that no application under Section 43, 45, 50 and 66 of the Code is filed or pending before this Tribunal qua the CD.

As per the requirement of Regulation 38(3) of CIRP Regulations, 2016, a plan shall demonstrate that it addresses the cause of default by the Corporate Debtor, it is feasible and viable, has provisions for its effective implementation, has provisions for approvals required and the timeline for the same, and the SRA has the capability to implement the plan. In this regard, reference may be made to Clause II(D) of the plan which reads thus:

As can be seen from Clause II(B) of the Resolution Plan, the SRA has stated that the plan is not in contravention of any law. The clause reads thus: -

It is pertinent to note that in Clause XII of the Resolution Plan, the SRA has sought a number of reliefs and concessions from this Tribunal. The Clause XII of the plan reads thus: -

In the captioned application, we see that in the Form H certificate submitted by the Applicant/ RP, the fair value and liquidation value of the CD is Rs. 9,54,27,336/- and Rs. 6,54,46,169/- respectively. Thus, we find that the value of the plan is more than the fair value of the Corporate Debtor, assessed by the valuators appointed by the RP in terms of the provisions of Regulation 27 of CIRP Regulations, 2016 r/w Regulation 35 thereof.

Besides, we note that in terms of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Limited Through Authorised Signatory vs. Satish Kumar Gupta & Ors. [Civil Appeal No. 8766-67 of 2019], it is the subject matter of commercial wisdom of CoC to take decision regarding the amount of bid offered by SRA and the scope for this Tribunal to interfere on such issues is negligible. The above view was also reiterated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ebix Singapore Private Limited vs. Committee of Creditors of Educomp Solutions Limited & Anr. (Civil Appeal No. 3224 of 2020) wherein the Hon'ble Court ruled that the scope of examination of the application for approval of Resolution Plan by this Tribunal is confined to the provisions of Section 30(2) of IBC, 2016. Para 153 of the Judgment reads thus: -

As far as the issue of reliefs and concessions which fall in the jurisdiction of different Government Authorities, and/ or are subjected to the provisions of different laws for the time being in force are concerned, it is made clear that the amount payable by the SRA in terms of the plan to different creditors, stakeholders, and to keep the Corporate Debtor as a going concern cannot be subject to any condition, assumptions, relief/ concessions and/ or qualification. It also needs to be underlined that the provisions of Section 31(4) of IBC, 2016 mandates the Resolution Applicant to obtain the necessary approval required under any law for the time being in force within a period of one year from the date of approval of the resolution plan by the Adjudicating Authority under Section 31 of the IBC, 2016. In terms of the provisions of Section 14 of the Code even during the period of CIRP, no default in payment of current dues is a precondition for continuation of the License, Permit, Registration and similar rights. Thus, even during the moratorium period, some of the facilities forming part of the reliefs and concessions sought are made available to the CD only when there is no default in payment of the current dues. On approval of the Resolution Plan, the SRA/CD cannot be put on a better footing by exempting it from paying its legitimate dues under the law. For the sake of convenience, the explanation below Section 14 of the code is extracted below:

(Emphasis Supplied)

In any case, in terms of the provisions of Sections 13 and 15 of the IBC 2016 read with Regulations 6, 6A, 7, 8, 8A, 9 and 9A of IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations 2016, all the claimants such as Operational Creditors, Financial Creditors, Creditors in Class, Workmen and Employees and other Creditors can raise their claims before the IRP/RP. The claims are dealt with by IRP in terms of the provisions of Section 18(1)(b) of the IBC, 2016 and by RP in terms of the provisions of Section 25(1)(b) thereof read with Regulations 12A, 13 and 14 of the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016. Thereafter, the RP prepares an Information Memorandum in terms of the provisions of Regulation 36(2) of IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016. The Memorandum contains inter alia a list of creditors containing the range of creditors, the amounts claimed by them, the amount of their claim admitted and the security interest if any in respect of such claims. As has been provided in Regulation 36(1) of the Regulations (ibid), the Information Memorandum is required to be submitted in electronic form to each member of CoC, on or before 95th day from the Insolvency commencement date. As has been provided in Regulation 36A of the Regulations the RP publish brief particulars of the invitation for Expression of Interest in Form G of Schedule I to the Regulations at the earliest i.e. not later than 60th day from the Insolvency commencement date, from interested and eligible Prospective Resolution Applicants to submit Resolution Plans. As can be seen from Regulation 36B of the Regulations, the RP shall issue Information Memorandum Evaluation Matrix (IMEM) and request for Resolution Plans, within 5 days of the date of issue of provisional list of eligible Prospective Resolution Applicants (required to be issued under Regulation 36A(10) of the Regulations). It is with reference to such Information Memorandum Evaluation Matrix that the RP issues request for Resolution Plan. The request for Resolution Plan details each step in the process and the manner and purposes of interaction between the Resolution Professional and the Prospective Resolution Applicant. The Resolution Plan submitted after consideration of the IMEM and RFRP is then examined by the Committee of Creditors. Nevertheless, it needs to satisfy the requirements of Regulation 37 and 38 of the extant Regulations. Once the plan is approved by the CoC, in terms of the provisions of Regulations 39 of the aforementioned Regulations, it virtually becomes a contract entered into between the CD represented through RP, SRA and the Creditors of the CD. On being approved by this Adjudicating Authority, by operation of Section 31(1) of the Code, the plan becomes binding on the Corporate Debtor and its employees, members, creditors (including the Central Government, any State Government or any local authority to whom a debt in respect of the payment of dues arising under any law for the time being enforced such as authorities to whom statutory dues are owed, guarantors and other stakeholders involved in the Resolution Plan. Thus, Section 31(1) of IBC, 2016, takes care of most of the relief/concession/waiver solicited by the Resolution Applicant.

Besides, in terms of the provisions of Section 32A, for an offence committed prior to the commencement of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, the liability of the CD ceases and the CD is not liable to be prosecuted from the date of approval of Resolution Plan by this Adjudicating Authority, if the Resolution Plan results in change of management or control of the CD to a person who was not promoter or in the management or control of the CD or a related party of such a person or a person with regard to whom the concerned Investigating Agency has reason to believe that he had abated or conspired for the commission of the offence and has submitted or filed a report or a complaint to the relevant statutory authority or Court. In such cases, where the prosecution is instituted against the CD, during CIRP, the CD stands discharged qua the same from the date of approval of the Resolution Plan. Nevertheless, every person who was a designated partner as defined in clause (j) of Section 2 of the Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008, “an officer who is in default” as defined in Clause (60) of Section 2 of Companies Act, 2013 or was in any manner in charge of, or responsible to the CD for the conduct of his business or associated with the CD in any manner and was directly or indirectly involved in the commission of an offence as per the report submitted or complaint filed by Investigating Agency shall continue to be liable to be prosecuted and punished for such an offence committed by the Corporate Debtor notwithstanding the Corporate Debtors’ liability ceases after approval of the plan.

In the wake of the provisions of Section 32A(2), no action is taken against the property of the Corporate Debtor in relation to an offence committed prior to the commencement of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process of the CD, where such property is covered under Resolution Plan approved by this Authority under Section 31, which result in the change in the control of the CD to a person who was not a promotor or in the management or control of the Corporate Debtor or related party of such person or a person with regard to whom the Investigating Agency has reason to believe that he had abated or conspired for commission of the offence and has submitted or filed a report or complaint to the relevant statutory authority or Court.

The action against the property of the Corporate Debtor as referred to in Section 32A of the Code includes the attachment, seizure, retention or confiscation under such law as may be applicable to the Corporate Debtor. One may also be not oblivious of the fact that in the backdrop of provisions of Section 31(3)(a) of the IBC, 2016, the moratorium order passed by the Adjudicating Authority under Section 14 ceases to have effect. In sum and substance, the SRA/CD would be entitled to no other relief/concession/waiver except those, which are available to it as per the provisions of Section 31(1) and 32A of IBC, 2016.

In any case, the SRA has also stated in the Resolution Plan that the plan is unconditional. Relevant excerpt of the same reads thus: -

Objection to plan could be preferred by Mr. Ayush Gupta, Suspended Director qua CD in the form of IA-290/2025. The salient objections espoused qua the plan can be summarized as under:-

In response to objection, the RP espoused thus:-

The Applicant filed IA-09/2025 for approval of the Resolution Plan submitted by the SRA, which stands approved by the CoC. However, in terms of order dated 01.08.2025, this Tribunal observed that in some parts of the Resolution Plan it was mentioned that the “amount provided” therein would be distributed, while in other parts it is indicated that the “admitted amount” would be distributed. Although in both places the specific amounts are mentioned, making it clear that the same amount would be distributed, nonetheless this Tribunal sought certain clarifications and directed the Applicant to rectify the inconsistency by replacing the words “admitted claim” with the expression “provided in the plan.” In view of that order, the I.A 09/2025 gets disposed of and the plan was remitted back to the CoC for re-examination so as to enable the RP/SRA to rectify the clerical error and file a fresh application under Section 30(6) of the Code. Thereafter, the Revised Resolution Plan submitted by the SRA was filed through a fresh application i.e., IA 53/2025, which was approved by the CoC in its 12th meeting held on 13.08.2025.

It is pertinent to state that I.A. 09/2025, through which the Resolution Plan was filed, got disposed of vide order dated 01.08.2025. The I.A. 53/2025, through which the revised Resolution Plan has been filed, is more or less on similar terms. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we consider the objections raised in I.A. 290/2025 as applicable to I.A. 53/2025 and adjudicate the same on merits.

Primarily, the contention of the Applicant in I.A. 290/2025 is that the 10^th CoC meeting on 03.01.2025 was held after the expiry of CIRP period on 07.11.2024. Thus, the process of holding the meeting and considering the resolution plan is legally untenable. In this regard, it is pertinent to note that the Applicant/ RP had filed the I.A. 5461/2024 on 06.11.2024 for extension of CIRP period by 60 days w.e.f. 08.11.2024. When the I.A. was taken up on 26.11.2024, the RP, who was appearing virtually, was not audible and thus, the application was posted on 16.01.2025. The aforesaid fact was noted in order dated 26.11.2024, which reads thus: -

It is pertinent to note in terms of Section 23(1) of the Code, an RP conduct the entire corporate insolvency resolution process qua CD. Further, the proviso to the aforementioned provision further states that the RP shall continue to manage the operations of the CD after the expiry of CIRP period until an order approving the resolution plan under Section 31(1) of the Code or appointing a liquidator under Section 34 is passed by the Adjudicating Authority. The Section 23(1) of the Code and the proviso thereunder reads thus: -

It is also relevant to note that in terms of Notification No. IBBI/2023-24/GN/REG113 dated 15.02.2024 (w.e.f. 15.02.2024), a clarification was added under Regulation 40 of CIRP Regulations, 2016 that the RP shall continue to discharge his responsibilities under the corporate insolvency resolution process till the application for extension is decided by the Adjudicating Authority. The Regulation 40 of CIRP Regulations, 2016 along with the clarification thereunder reads thus: -

(Emphasis Supplied)

Thus, in terms of the provisions of Section 23(1) of the IBC, 2016 as also Regulation 40 of CIRP Regulations, 2016 RP is allowed to continue to discharge his functions after the expiry of the CIRP period in the circumstances mentioned therein. In the present case, when the CIRP period qua CD was expiring on 07.11.2024, the RP had filed an application for extension of the CIRP period from 08.11.2024 for a period of 60 days after approval of the CoC. Furthermore, the application could be allowed by this Tribunal in terms of order dated 26.03.2025. Thus, there is no infirmity in the conduct of RP in holding the CoC meeting during the pendency of the application for extending CIRP period.

The Applicant in I.A. No. 290/2025 i.e. the Suspended Director qua CD, has also objected to the application for approval of resolution plan on the grounds that it was not allowed to submit a resolution plan by the Applicant/ RP. In this regard, it is apposite to note that the same Applicant had also preferred I.A. No. 5018/2024 with the prayer to direct the RP to place the resolution plan submitted by it before the CoC. However, the application was rejected by this Tribunal in terms of order dated 26.03.2025 on the ground that the plan was not submitted within the period prescribed under the law. The order dated 26.03.2025 reads thus: -

In the wake of the aforementioned order, the issue raised in I.A. No. 290/2025 alleging arbitrary action on the part of the RP in not allowing the Suspended Director to submit his resolution plan is without merit.

Another objection raised in I.A. No. 290/2025 is that the RP only placed the resolution plan submitted by the SRA before the CoC for voting at the 10th CoC meeting. This contention has been opposed by the RP by espousing that when the CoC, at the 8th CoC meeting on 27.08.2024, passed a resolution for further negotiations with the 3 PRAs and only the SRA submitted a revised resolution plan which was subsequently submitted for voting at the 10th CoC meeting. Relevant excerpt of the minutes of the 8th CoC meeting, enclosed as Annexure No. 16 to the application, reads thus: -

Thus, when the CoC in its commercial wisdom had sought improved/ modified proposals from the PRAs and only the SRA submitted such modified proposal, it cannot be said that the CoC ought to have voted upon the resolution plan submitted by the other PRAs. It is also relevant to note that none of the other PRAs have raised any such objection to the approval of the plan submitted by the SRA. In the wake, the objection raised by the Suspended Director that the plan submitted by all the prospective resolution application should have been placed before the CoC for voting is without basis and deserves to be rejected.

In the wake of the aforementioned, this Tribunal is of the considered view that the objections raised in I.A. 290/2025 qua the resolution plan is untenable and the same are nixed.

In the backdrop of aforementioned factual position, discussion, analysis and findings, the IA No. 53/2025 filed by the Applicant/ RP for approval of the Resolution Plan is allowed. The Plan submitted by the SRA, certified by the RP by issuing a certificate in prescribed form viz. Form “H”, is approved.

As a sequel, we issue the following directions: -

The approved Resolution Plan shall become effective from the date of passing of this Order and shall be implemented strictly as per the term of the plan and implementation schedule given in the Plan;

The SRA/CD would be entitled to no other reliefs/concessions/waivers except those are available/permissible to it as per the provisions of Section 31(1) and 32A of IBC, 2016. The SRA is at liberty to approach the relevant authorities who would consider these claims as per the provisions of the relevant law in an expeditious manner;

Following steps would be taken in terms of the resolution plan: -

The order of the moratorium in respect to the corporate debtor passed by this Adjudicating Authority under Section 14 of the IBC, 2016 shall cease to have effect from the date of passing of this Order;

The SRA shall act in terms of the provisions of Section 31(4) of IBC 2016;

The Monitoring Committee shall file progress report regarding implementation of the Plan before this Tribunal, every month;

The RP shall forward all the records relating to the conduct of the CIRP and the Resolution Plan to the IBBI for its record and database;

The RP shall also forthwith send a copy of this order to the participants and the Resolution Applicant. He would also send a copy of this order to the ROC concerned within 15 days of this order;

The RP shall intimate each claimant about the principle or formulae, as the case may be, for payment of debts under the Plan;

Since the object of CIRP is to revive the CD, if any time within 5 years, the SRA would propose to part with the assets of the CD, it would give notice to the creditors in this regard.

Since the object of IBC is to put the Corporate Debtor back to its feet, the SRA is directed to keep the CD as going concern, by making all possible efforts and would not part with the assets of the CD for two years from implementation of the plan. If, the assets of the CD are disposed of before aforementioned period, the difference of the plan value and sale proceed would go to the secured creditors.

The Court Officer and Resolution Professional (RP) shall forthwith make available/send a copy of this Order to the CoC and the Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA) for immediate necessary compliance.

RP is also directed to act in terms of the provisions of Regulations 39 (5 to 6) and 39A of IBBI (CIRP) Regulations, 2016.