State Bank Of India vs Marvelous Metals Pvt. Ltd.

IA (I.B.C)/3451(MB)2025

IA(IBC)(LIQ.)/ 53(MB)2025

“(1)

Where the Adjudicating Authority, —

(a)

before the expiry of the insolvency resolution process period or the maximum period permitted for completion of the corporate insolvency resolution process under section 12 or the fast track corporate insolvency resolution process under section 56, as the case may be, does not receive a resolution plan under sub-section (6) of section 30; or

(b)

rejects the resolution plan under section 31 for the non-compliance of the requirements specified therein, it shall—

(i)

pass an order requiring the corporate debtor to be liquidated in the manner as laid down in this Chapter;

(ii)

issue a public announcement stating that the corporate debtor is in liquidation; and

(iii)

require such order to be sent to the authority with which the corporate debtor is registered.

(2)

Where the resolution professional, at any time during the corporate insolvency resolution process but before confirmation of resolution plan, intimates the Adjudicating Authority of the decision of the committee of creditors to liquidate the corporate debtor, the Adjudicating Authority shall pass a liquidation order as referred to in sub-clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) of clause (b) of sub-section (1)”.

INDEX

SYNOPSIS

The Present Application is preferred by the Applicant seeking correction in the Order dated August 4, 2025 passed by this Hon'ble Tribunal in IA No. 53 of 2025. Hence this Application.

LIST OF DATES

Date	Particulars
December 13, 2024	Company Petition was admitted and Corporate Debtor is subjected to Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process.
June 12, 2024	Liquidation Application was filed.
August 4, 2025	Advocate for Applicant was present and submitted the facts in relation to the Application and the Liquidation Application was allowed vide an order dated 04.08.25.
August 6, 2025	The Order dated August 4, 2025 allowing liquidation of the Corporate Debtor was made available, upon perusal of the same, it appears that certain inadvertent errors not relating to the present matter have crept in.
	Hence the present Application.

APPLICATION FOR SPEAKING TO MINUTES OF THE ORDER DATED AUGUST 4, 2025 UNDER RULE 154 OF THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL RULES, 2016

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH:

1.

The Present Application is preferred by the Applicant seeking for correction in the order dated 04.06.25 passed by this Hon'ble Tribunal in IA No. 53 of 2025.

2.

The Applicant is appointed as the Liquidator of the Corporate Debtor vide an order dated 04.08.2025 passed by this Hon'ble Tribunal in IA No. 53 of 2025.

3.

The Interlocutory Application No. 53 of 2025. was placed before this Hon'ble Tribunal on 04.08.25 wherein this Hon'ble Tribunal was pleased to allow this Application and initiated liquidation proceedings qua the Corporate Debtor. Hereto annexed and marked as the Exhibit "A" is the copy of the order date 04.08.25. Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit "B" is a copy of the minutes of the seventh meeting of the CoC held on 09.06.2025.

4.

The order dated 04.08.25 of the Hon'ble Tribunal was uploaded on or about 06.08.25. Upon perusal of the said order the applicant states that there are certain errors in the said order which are as below:

Para & Page number of the Order	Error	Clarification
Page 2 Para 2a.	Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) of the Corporate Debtor was initiated by this Tribunal vide order dated 13.12.2024 upon admission of a Company Petition under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (the Code) and the Applicant herein was appointed as the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) of the Corporate Debtor qua the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process of the Corporate Debtor	Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) of the Corporate Debtor was initiated by this Tribunal vide order dated 13.12.2024 upon admission of a Company Petition under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (the Code) and Mr. Anuj Bajpai was appointed as the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) of the Corporate Debtor qua the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process of the Corporate Debtor. Subsequently, vide an Order dated 04.04.2025 the Applicant herein was appointed as the Resolution Professional of the Corporate Debtor.
Page 3 & 4 Para 4 & para 5	4) Further, the COC members did not approve a liquidation plan pursuant to regulation 39B of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (CIRP regulations), 2016 wherein the CoC was required to decide on the manner in which the liquidation costs should be funded. The CoC, which is being formed of the Operational Creditors, did not decide to contribute to the liquidation costs.	The details referred to in para 4 of the Order are not pertaining to the facts of the present matter. CoC was constituted comprising of Financial Creditors and whereas the Financial Creditors approved liquidation of the Corporate Debtor by 100% majority in its seventh meeting held on 09.06.2025. (Re: pg 152 of Application and corresponding Resolution passed @ pg 157 of the Application). ATUL RAJWADKAR INSOLVENCY PROFESSIONAL Registration No: IBBI/IPA-001/ IP-P00152/2017-18/10321

Para & Page number of the Order	Error	Clarification
	5) It would further appear that the members of CoC does not want to proceed in the matter of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process of M/s Marvelous Metals Pvt. Ltd. in accordance with provisions of the IBC, 2016.	Further, the CoC did approve the Liquidation Cost Estimate; however, did not put up any plan for funding of the said Liquidation Cost. The same will be dealt with the Stakeholders Consultation Committee as per the relevant Liquidation Regulations.
Page 5 Para 7c	That the Liquidator for conduct of the Liquidation proceedings would be entitled to the fees as provided in Regulation 4(2)(b) of the IBBI (Liquidation Process Regulations), 2016	Fee structure of the Liquidator was decided during the seventh meeting of CoC. Para therefore may be as follows: That the Liquidator for conduct of the Liquidation proceedings would be entitled to the fees as confirmed by the CoC in its seventh meeting held on 09.06.2025. (Re: Agenda Item No. B(2), second paragraph thereunder @ pg 153)
Page 6 Para 7(f)	The Liquidator shall endeavour to sale the Company as a going concern during the liquidation in terms of Regulation 32A of the Liquidation Process Regulations. In case he is not able to do so within a period of 90 days from this date, he shall proceed in accordance with clauses (a) to (d) of Regulation 32 of the Liquidation Process Regulations.	In the CoC meeting on 09.06.2025, the RP had indicated that sale as a going concern appeared unlikely due to absence of ongoing operations and prior lack of interest during CIRP. The CoC discussed to explore sale of assets collectively or in parts to maximize realization. Thus, the CoC has not decided to sale the Corporate Debtor as a going concern as per the discussions of the CoC Meeting held on 09.06.2025.

5.

In view of the above the Applicant humbly prays as under:

a. Allow the present Application;

b. Modify the Order in terms of detail and clarification provided in the table under para 4 of the present Application;

c. For any other and further order as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit.

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE APPLICANT FOREVER PRAYS.

AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT

I, Atul Rajwadkar, Applicant abovenamed, having address at Plot No 47, Hindusthan Colony, Wardha Road, Nagpur – 440 015 do hereby state and declare as under: -

1.

That I have filed the present Application for the reliefs and prayers more particularly set out in the Application.

2.

I repeat, reiterate, and adopt all the contentions and the averments and statements made by me in the said Application and the same maybe deemed to be forming part of the present Application.

3.

In view of the above, I pray that the said be made absolute in terms mentioned therein.

VERIFICATION

I, Atul Rajwadkar, the Applicant abovenamed, having address at Plot No 47, Hindusthan Colony, Wardha Road, Nagpur – 440 015 do hereby solemnly state and declare that whatever is stated in the foregoing paragraph nos. 1 to 6 is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and I believe the same to be true.

ORDER

IA (I.B.C)/3451(MB)2025

IA(IBC)(LIQ.)/ 53(MB)2025

“(1)

Where the Adjudicating Authority, —

(a)

before the expiry of the insolvency resolution process period or the maximum period permitted for completion of the corporate insolvency resolution process under section 12 or the fast track corporate insolvency resolution process under section 56, as the case may be, does not receive a resolution plan under sub-section (6) of section 30; or

(b)

rejects the resolution plan under section 31 for the non-compliance of the requirements specified therein, it shall—

(i)

pass an order requiring the corporate debtor to be liquidated in the manner as laid down in this Chapter;

(ii)

issue a public announcement stating that the corporate debtor is in liquidation; and

(iii)

require such order to be sent to the authority with which the corporate debtor is registered.

(2)

Where the resolution professional, at any time during the corporate insolvency resolution process but before confirmation of resolution plan, intimates the Adjudicating Authority of the decision of the committee of creditors to liquidate the corporate debtor, the Adjudicating Authority shall pass a liquidation order as referred to in sub-clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) of clause (b) of sub-section (1)”.

Resolution 1 –

“Resolved that the Resolution Professional be allowed to file an application under Section 33 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, for initiation of liquidation proceedings of Marvelous Metals Pvt. Ltd., before the Hon’ble NCLT.”

The COC took note of the matter and approved the resolution with 100% votes.

II. Agenda Item no. B (2)

To appoint the existing Resolution Professional as the Liquidator.

In view of the decision to initiate liquidation proceedings under Section 33 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, the Resolution Professional informed the CoC that, as per Section 34 of the Code, a liquidator is required to be appointed. The Resolution Professional, being eligible to act as the Liquidator provided his consent to act as the Liquidator in matter of the Corporate Debtor (as Annexure F to the notice of the present meeting), subject to the approval of the CoC, or the CoC may choose to appoint another eligible professional as the liquidator.

The RP further informed the CoC that, until the liquidation application is admitted by the Hon’ble Adjudicating Authority, he is required to continue discharging his duties as Resolution Professional. For this interim period—from the date of filing the liquidation application until its admission—the RP offered to render his services at a reduced fee, amounting to 80% of his existing monthly remuneration.

The CoC members consented for the appointment of RP as liquidator and the fees of RP during the interim period.

The Consent Form of the Resolution Professional to act as the Liquidator is attached herewith as Annexure F for the perusal of the CoC.

The following resolution was passed for this agenda:

Resolution 2 –

“Resolved that the existing Resolution Professional be appointed as the Liquidator for the Corporate Debtor.”

Resolution 3 –

“Resolved that the Resolution Professional shall continue to manage the affairs of the Corporate Debtor after the expiry of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) until an order appointing the Liquidator under section 34 is passed by the Adjudicating Authority at 80% of the current monthly fee of the Resolution Professional.”

The COC took note of the matter and approved the resolution with 100% votes.

MARVELOUS METALS PVT. LTD.

7^th COC Meeting held on 09th June, 2025 through Video Conference at Nagpur at 11:00 AM

Attendance:

Financial Creditor:

Sr no.	Bank Name	Attendee Name	Designation
1.	State Bank of India	Mohammad Rashid Khan	Assistant General Manager
		Uday Kiran B	Chief Manager
2.	Bank of Baroda	Rajendra Sandera	Chief Manager

RP Team:

CA Atul Rajwadkar, RP

CA Swarada Sagdeo

CS Kiran Waghwani

Directors with Suspended Powers:

Absent

Valuers: as & when they were permitted to join the meeting

Sr no.	Valuer Name	Class of Assets
1.	Mr. Parag Sheth	Land & Building
2.	Miss. Monica Mota	Land & Building
3.	Mr. Lionel Azavedo	Plant & Machinery
4.	Mr. Vipul Rajpara	Plant & Machinery
5.	Mr. Yatin Shah	Securities and Financial Assets

The Seventh meeting of Committee of Creditors (CoC) of Marvelous Metals Pvt. Ltd. (the Corporate Debtor – CD) took place through Video Conferencing Mode at Nagpur on 9th June, 2025. The meeting started at 11.45 AM and ended at around 12.45 PM. The minutes of the meeting are as under:

AGENDA ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION

I. Agenda Item no. A (1) The Resolution Professional to take the Chair

In accordance with regulation 24 of 'Insolvency & Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulation, 2016', the Resolution Professional acted as the Chairperson of the meeting of Committee of Creditors.

II. Agenda Item no. A (2) To ascertain the Quorum of the Meeting

As per Regulation 22(1) of the "Insolvency & Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulation, 2016', a meeting of the Committee shall quorate if members of the committee representing at least thirty three percent of the voting rights are present either in person or by video conferencing or other audio and visual means.

The meeting was attended by all the members of the CoC. Hence, after taking a roll call during the meeting, the Chairman confirmed that the Quorum of the meeting was 100%.

III. Agenda Item no. A (3) To take on record the Minutes of the Last CoC Meeting which had been circulated to the members of the CoC

Minutes of the Sixth CoC meeting had been circulated with the members of CoC. No observations had been received after the circulation of minutes. RP asked the CoC for their observations, if any.

No observations were noted. The minutes were taken on record.

IV. Agenda Item no. A (4) To update the CoC members about Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process of the Corporate Debtor.

- Update on CIRP cost as on the date of Notice:

The Resolution Professional informed that, total CIRP costs (incurred from commencement of CIRP up to the date of issuance of notice of the meeting) of ₹17,18,748/- has been expended. Detailed breakup of the CIRP cost was provided to the members of the COC in Annexure A to the Notice. The Resolution professional informed the COC that legal cost will be incurred in the event of filing necessary application with the Hon'ble NCLT. The RP invited comments from the CoC members on the above costs and requested ratification in the absence of any objections. The CoC members duly noted the update and ratified the CIRP costs incurred till date.

A detailed list of CIRP Cost from the Insolvency Commencement Date to 03.06.2025 as approved by the members of the CoC is attached herewith as Annexure A.

- Regarding Invitation of Expression of Interest (EoI):

The RP informed that as per Form G published on 10.05.2025 (for the second time) in Economic Times (English) – Pune & Kolhapur, The Free Press Journal (English) - Mumbai and Pudhari (Marathi) - Kolhapur, the last date of receipt of Expression of Interest (EoI) was 25.05.2025. In this regard, 27 enquiries were received for submission of Expression of Interest (EoIs) by the RP. The RP further stated that the list of enquiries received from the previous publication of Form G and the latest one were shared with the COC as Annexure B to the Notice. Mr. Uday Kiran B, representative of State Bank of India, enquired whether any of the enquiries had materialized into an Expression of Interest. The Resolution Professional informed the CoC that no entity had submitted an Expression of Interest for the Corporate Debtor. The CoC members duly noted the same.

The enquiries received by the Resolution Professional, in response to the Form G dated 14.04.2025 and Form G dated 10.05.2025, as discussed in the meeting are attached herewith as Annexure B.

- Update regarding PUFE application:

The RP informed the CoC, that, as discussed in the earlier meetings, M/s. J.M. Associates (Mr. Lalit Dave - Partner) had been appointed as the Transaction Auditor and has since submitted the Transaction Audit Report. The RP further clarified that the auditor did not receive the necessary data during the tenure of the erstwhile IRP, which resulted in a delay in the completion of the audit. Consequently, the timeline for filing the PUFE application—i.e., within 130 days from the Insolvency Commencement Date (ICD)—has been exceeded. Following the receipt of the report on 05^th June, 2025, the Resolution Professional circulated the same to the CoC members for their information, and to the erstwhile management and current directors (with suspended powers) of the Corporate Debtor for their comments. Responses are awaited as of date.

The RP informed the CoC members that the below transactions have been identified based on the audited financials for FY 2021-22 which appear to be suspicious in nature—

Particulars	Amount in Rs. 000'
Creditors written off in Previous financial years written back in FY 2021-22	59,80.00
Capital Work in Progress	52,131.00
Payment to Ajara Urban Co-op Bank	25,624.85
Advances made to related parties (prior to 2017-18)	924.00
Payments made to related parties (Machining Labor Charges) (for the period FY 2021-22)	9915.61
Interest paid or payable to related parties (for the period FY 2021-22)	150.33
Total	94,725.79

The RP brought to the attention of the CoC that certain transactions were identified as having been made to Account No. 0034884141294 maintained with Ajara Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. These transfers occurred over three financial years—2020-21, 2021-22, and 2022-23. The RP informed that he has written to the said bank and is currently in the process of verifying whether the Corporate Debtor held an account with Ajara Urban Co-operative Bank. However, no response has been received from the bank as yet.

Mr Uday Kiran B commented that that it is unlikely that either the bank or the Corporate Debtor would disclose such information. In response, the RP clarified that he has formally informed the bank of his appointment as the Resolution Professional of the Corporate Debtor by order of the Hon'ble NCLT and officially requested for this information.

The Resolution Professional further informed that SBI had conducted a Stock and Receivables Audit of the Corporate Debtor and had also prepared a Joint Inspection Report. As per the audited financial statements for the financial year 2021–22, the Corporate Debtor had reported stock worth approximately ₹8.82 crores as of 31st March 2022. Furthermore, the Stock and Receivables Audit conducted by SBI in November 2023 reflected stock valued at ₹7 crores as of 31st May 2023.

However, according to the Joint Inspection Report, the management of the Corporate Debtor had indicated that the stock was to be sold and dispatched shortly. Despite this, the RP noted that no such stock was found at the Corporate Debtor's factory site. Additionally, there were no corresponding entries in the books of accounts or any bank receipts reflecting proceeds from the sale of the said stock.

In view of this, the RP stated that all such matters would also form part of the PUFE transactions. RP stated that he would file the relevant application for such transactions. He further mentioned that such PUFE application will be shared with the CoC once it is finalized.

- Claims:

The Resolution Professional informed the CoC about status of application for constitution of the Committee of Creditors (CoC). He stated that the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) had filed the said application with the Hon'ble NCLT on 10th January 2025. However, the application was neither listed nor numbered due to certain defects. The said matter recently came to the attention of the RP. After getting to know about the same, the RP sought clarification from the IRP & his lawyer regarding the status of the application. In response, the IRP confirmed that while the application was filed, the legal counsel appointed in this regard would be able to help the Resolution Professional in this matter. The RP further informed that he is currently in the process of determining the appropriate steps to rectify and regularize the said application in consultation with the lawyer. This matter had already been informed by email to the CoC on 30th May 2025.

The Resolution Professional further informed that, as per Regulation 13 of the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as 'CIRP Regulations') a separate list of creditors was required to be filed with the Hon'ble NCLT. However, the IRP had included the list of creditors within the same application that was filed for the constitution of the Committee of Creditors. As a result, neither a standalone application for the constitution of the CoC nor a separate list of creditors was properly filed before the Hon'ble NCLT.

In response to the same, Mr. Uday Kiran B asked whether the Hon'ble NCLT would accept the application after rectification of defects. The RP explained that he had consulted with legal professionals on the matter and stated that while no precedent cases have come to his attention, the RP remains hopeful that the Hon'ble NCLT will accept the rectified application.

The Resolution Professional further informed that both he and the erstwhile IRP have received certain claims from operational creditors, apart from the government dues and the claims of workmen/employees. However, these claims were submitted beyond the prescribed 90-day period from the Insolvency Commencement Date, as stipulated under the CIRP Regulations. The RP stated that he has compiled these claims and requested the respective claimants to provide supporting documents along with a valid reason for the delay in submission. As per the CIRP Regulations, it is mandatory for claimants to furnish an explanation when claims are filed after the 90-day period.

He further explained that such delayed claims must be verified and presented before the CoC for their consideration and approval. However, the RP noted that, as of now, no reasons for the delay have been received from the claimants.

Furthermore, the erstwhile IRP had previously received a consolidated claim form on behalf of 127 employees/workmen through the Unit President of the Employee Union, along with 10 individual claims submitted separately by certain employees. These claims had initially been classified as “Under Verification” by the IRP. During his tenure, the RP reviewed these claims and issued communications to the claimants highlighting discrepancies observed during the verification process. Subsequently, on 28.05.2025, the RP received revised claim forms from the 127 employees individually, which were earlier filed by the Unit President. These revised claims were submitted in multiple tranches, with the final set received on 04.06.2025. The RP, vide email dated 06^th June, 2025, informed the concerned employees/workmen that these submissions will be treated as fresh claims, and the earlier consolidated claim will be disregarded. The RP is currently in the process of verifying the revised claims.

Upon this, Mr. Uday Kiran B enquired about the timeline of filing of claim. The RP replied that the timeline for filing the claims was 90 days from the Insolvency Commencement Date. While claims received beyond this period will still be verified, their inclusion in the list of creditors is subject to the provisions of the Code. The RP further mentioned that he has not yet made a decision on the admission of these claims, as he is still awaiting the additional information requested from the claimants.

Mr. Uday Kiran B further inquired whether any provisioning needs to be made in respect of the aforementioned claims. The Resolution Professional clarified that no provision as such is required at the moment, and that he was merely updating the CoC members about the receipt of these claims. The CoC member enquired about the total amount of claim received of the employees/workmen. The RP referred to Annexure C of the notice and informed that the total amount of claims filed by operational creditors (other than Government Dues, Employees and Workmen) after the 90-day period from the Insolvency Commencement Date amounted to ₹99,80,365.77/-. Additionally, the total amount of claims filed individually by 20 workmen/employees who have filed claims after the 90-days period is ₹20,91,152/-. Cumulatively, the RP has received claims from 149 employees/workmen amounting to ₹15,18,20,607/-. These claims are up to the date of issuance of notice of the meeting and the RP is in the process of verifying these claims.

The list of claims received after 90^th day from the Insolvency Commencement Date from Operational Creditors (being Employees & Workmen) and Operational Creditors (other than Government Dues, Employees and Workmen) is attached herewith as Annexure C.

A category-wise summary of claims received from the Insolvency Commencement Date to 06^th June, 2025 is attached herewith as Annexure D.

V. Agenda Item no. A (5) To discuss the valuation methodology adopted by the valuers for valuation of assets of corporate debtor.

The RP informed the CoC members that as per the Proviso to Regulation 35 of “Insolvency & Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulation, 2016” (hereinafter referred to as CIRP Regulations) inserted by Notification No. IBBI/2023-24/GN/REG113, dated 15th February, 2024,

... “that the resolution professional shall facilitate a meeting wherein registered valuers shall explain the methodology being adopted to arrive at valuation to the members of the committee before computation of estimates”.

The Resolution Professional informed the CoC that only the basis and methodology for valuation of assets will be discussed during the meeting and the valuations will not be disclosed. He also stated that the valuers will be invited to discuss the details based on the class of assets for which they have been appointed, that is –

i.

Land and building; ii. Plant and machinery; and iii. Securities and Financial Assets

The Resolution Professional invited the valuers in pair according to the class of assets. The RP briefed the valuers that they need to explain the methodology followed and basis used in the valuation of land and building and specified that valuations should not be disclosed.

Land & Building:

Mr. Parag Sheth and Miss. Monica Mota were invited in the meeting. They were introduced to the attendees.

Mr. Sheth informed the CoC that there are two primary assets under consideration—land and building. For the land, the self-comparison and market approach has been adopted to determine the fair value. In the case of the building, the Depreciated Replacement Cost (DRC) method was used, considering the structure has been in use for the last 10–15 years.

The RP sought clarification from the valuer on whether the valuation of the building was based on the replacement cost or the depreciated cost. The valuer clarified that the depreciated cost has been considered, as the valuation does not follow straight-line depreciation and the cost has varied from the original construction value due to usage over time.

Miss Monica Mota informed the CoC members that she has also adopted the self-comparison method for valuing the land, and the Depreciated Replacement Cost (DRC) method for valuing the building. Upon the RP’s request to elaborate on the DRC method, she explained that under this approach by determining the age of the building, the applicable depreciation is calculated and deducted from the gross replacement cost. This results in the Depreciated Replacement Cost of a particular asset i.e. building.

The RP inquired with the valuers whether the rates per sq. ft. of the three plots would be similar or vary. Ms. Monica Mota responded that the rates depend on the area of each plot, resulting in differences in property values. Consequently, the per square foot rates for each plot vary from one another.

Mr. Parag further added that each plot has a distinct pedigree, meaning the plots and their respective values are not identical across the three locations.

The Resolution professional invited queries from the members of the COC and no queries were raised.

The Resolution Professional thanked both the valuers and requested them to log out of the meeting.

Plant & Machinery:

The Resolution Professional invited the valuers of Plant & Machinery – Mr. Lionel Azavedo and Mr. Vipul Rajpara and introduced them to the CoC members. The Resolution Professional briefed the valuers that they need to state the methodology followed in the valuation of assets in the meeting and the valuation should not be disclosed.

Mr. Azavedo informed the CoC that for the valuation of plant and machinery, he has adopted the Depreciated Replacement Cost (DRC) method under the cost approach, as the market approach is not applicable in the present case. He explained that for such assets, the base values considered are the Fair Value and the Liquidation Value. The Fair Value has been determined using the premise of existing and current use of the assets, while the Liquidation Value is based on an orderly liquidation scenario.

The RP asked Mr. Azavedo to explain in simple terms whether the depreciated value or replacement value had been considered in the valuation. Mr. Azavedo clarified that the process involves three key steps. Firstly, the condition of the asset and the replacement cost. After the depreciated replacement cost is arrived, they account for obsolescence i.e. any technical, functional or economic obsolescence in a particular asset. After accounting for the obsolescence, a fair value is derived.

Mr. Vipul Rajpara confirmed that he has also adopted the Depreciated Replacement Cost (DRC) method for valuing the plant and machinery. He explained that the replacement cost of the asset is determined first, and then depreciation is subtracted from this cost to arrive at the fair value of the asset as on date. The RP inquired whether Mr. Rajpara had calculated both the fair value and the liquidation value. Mr. Rajpara responded that he has calculated both values.

The Resolution professional invited queries from the members of the COC and no queries were raised.

The Resolution Professional thanked both the valuers and requested them to log out of the meeting.

Securities & Financial Assets:

The Resolution Professional invited the valuers of Securities & Financial Assets – Mr. Yatin Kumar Shah and Mr. Pinakin Shah, however only Mr. Yatin Kumar Shah logged into the meeting. The Resolution professional introduced Mr. Yatin Kumar Shah to the CoC members. The Resolution Professional briefed the valuer that he needs to state the methodology followed in the valuation of assets in the meeting and the valuation should not be disclosed.

Mr. Shah informed the CoC that he had been provided with the latest audited balance sheet for FY 2021–22, and based on the available details, the only asset under valuation was the bank balance. He stated that for adopting any valuation methodology, the actual bank balance would be considered. The RP enquired if Mr. Shah had tried to obtain the latest bank statements for more accurate assessment. However, the RP further clarified that the most recent bank statements available with him had already been shared with the valuers, and confirmed that all available details—pertaining to the balance sheet and statements of account—had been provided to them.

AGENDA ITEMS FOR VOTING

I. Agenda Item no. B (1)

Resolution 1 –

"Resolved that the Resolution Professional be allowed to file an application under Section 33 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, for initiation of liquidation proceedings of Marvelous Metals Pvt. Ltd., before the Hon'ble NCLT."

II. Agenda Item no. B (2)

Resolution 2 –

"Resolved that the existing Resolution Professional be appointed as the Liquidator for the Corporate Debtor."

Resolution 3 –

"Resolved that the Resolution Professional shall continue to manage the affairs of the Corporate Debtor after the expiry of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) until an order appointing the Liquidator under section 34 is passed by the Adjudicating Authority at 80% of the current monthly fee of the Resolution Professional."

III. Agenda Item no. B (3)

1. Compromise and Arrangement:

2. Sale of the Corporate Debtor under Section 32 of the Liquidation Regulations:

3. Fee Structure Based on Relinquishment of Security Interest

Scenario 1: SBI as Secured Financial Creditor, Do Not Relinquish Security Interest

Scenario 2: SBI as Secured Financial Creditor, Relinquish Security Interest

Resolution 4 –

"Resolved that the fees of the Liquidator be approved as discussed during the meeting."

IV. Agenda Item no. B (4)

Resolution 5-

“Resolved that the estimated Liquidation Cost as discussed in the meeting be approved”

Any Other Matter discussed during the meeting

Pending CIRP Cost:

Annexure A

Update on CIRP Cost incurred from 13.12.2024 to 03.06.2025