Stressed Asset Stabilization Fund vs I.C. Textiles Limited

Per: Balraj Joshi, Member (Technical)

This Court convened through hybrid mode.

I.A. (IB) No. 172/KB/2023 and I.A. (IB) No. 411/KB/2023 are being dealt with in a common order because the prayers are interconnected. I.A. (IB) No. 172/KB/2023 has been filed for approval of Resolution Plan whereas I.A. (IB) No. 411/KB/2023 has been filed as an objection to the approval of the Resolution Plan.

The underlying Company Petition in C.P. (IB) No. 1567/KB/2019 was filed by Stressed Asset Stabilization Fund, the Financial Creditor against I.C. Textiles Limited, the Corporate Debtor, to initiate Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP”), under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016, which was admitted vide order dated 14 March 2022.

Initially, Mr. Sanjay Kumar Agarwal had been appointed as the Interim Resolution Professional. Mr. Sandeep Khaitan was appointed as the Resolution Professional of the Corporate Debtor by this Adjudicating Authority vide order dated 01 April 2022 passed in I.A. (IB) No. 299/KB/2022.

I.A. (IB) No. 172/KB/2023 is an application under section 30(6) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, after approval of the resolution plan by the Committee of Creditors (“CoC”).

This application was filed by Mr. Sandeep Khaitan, Resolution Professional of I.C. Textiles Limited [CIN: U18101WB1983PLC035976] by invoking the provisions of section 30(6) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“the Code” or “IBC”) read with regulation 39(4) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 (“CIRP Regulations”) for approval of a Resolution Plan in respect of I.C. Textiles Limited (“Corporate Debtor”).

The IRP, pursuant to Regulation 6(1) of the CIRP Regulations, made public announcement^{11.Annexure C @ Pp. 115-119 of I.A.} on 15 April 2022 published in The Telegraph (“English”) and E-Samay (“Bengali”) (Kolkata editions) and The Financial Express (English) and Loksatta-Jansatta (Gujarati) (Gujarat Edition) newspapers, regarding initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process and called proof of claims from the financial and operational creditors, workers and employees of the corporate debtor in the specified forms. The last date of submission of claims was 27 April 2022.

The CoC was constituted on 06 May 2022, with the three Secured Financial Creditor viz. Stressed Asset Stabilization Fund having 53.28% voting share, Suzlon Synthetic Limited, having 37.25% voting share and Canara Bank having 9.47% voting share. A report on the constitution of the CoC, was filed before the Adjudicating Authority^{22.Annexure D @ Pp.120-138 of I.A.}. The list of creditors was updated from time to time and uploaded in the IBBI website.

The Applicant states that a total of nine CoC meetings have been held during CIRP period, as follows:

The amounts claimed and admitted are summarised below:

The Applicant submits that in terms of the provisions of section 25(2)(h) of the Code read with regulation 36A(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016, invitations in Form ‘G’ for Expressions of Interest (“EoI”) from potential resolution applicants was issued on 25 June 2022 in Times of India (English) (Baroda edition), Loksatta-Jansatta (Gujarati) (Gujarat Edition), Business Standard (English) (Kolkata Edition) and Aajkal (Bengali) (Kolkata edition) newspapers wherein the last date of receiving EoI was 29 August 2022. The notices were also published on the website of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI).

The Resolution Professional received three EoIs and the provisional list of prospective Resolution Applicants was issued on 22 July 2022 and the Final list of eligible Resolution Applicants containing three Applicants was issued on 29 July 2022. The RP shared the Information Memorandum, Evaluation Matrix and Request for Resolution Plan (“RFRP”) with the Prospective Resolution Applicants on 27 July 2022. The last date of submission of Resolution Plan was extended to 12 September 2022.

As per regulation 35(2) of the CIRP Regulations, after receipt of the Resolution Plan, the RP informed the fair value and liquidation value of the Corporate Debtor to the CoC.

The Resolution Professional received three Resolution Plans from three Resolution Applicants viz. MG Threads, Sanjay M Sachapara and Drishya Aggarwal. The Resolution Plans were presented by the Resolution Professional in the 7^th CoC meeting held on 28 October 2022. The CoC members discussed the Resolution Plan and the feasibility and viability of the Resolution Plans. A weeks time was granted to the prospective Resolution Applicants to file the best compliant Resolution Plan.

The revised Resolution Plans were discussed in the 8^th CoC meeting held on 10 November 2022 and 11 November 2022. After due consideration, the CoC members requested the Resolution Applicants to revise the commercial offer and submit their revised Resolution Plan before 21 November 2022.

It is submitted that in the 9^th CoC meeting held on 02 December 2022 and 12 December 2022, the CoC deliberated and discussed the feasibility and viability of each of the Resolution Plans and confirmed that the Resolution Plans were feasible and viable and were put up for vote till 26 December 2022.

The resolution Plan submitted by Mr. Drishya Aggarwal dated 12 September 2022 and amended on 18 November 2022 and further amended on 06 December 2022 was approved by the CoC with 100% voting share of the CoC and was declared the Successful Resolution Applicant^{33.Annexure R @ Pp 629-633 of I.A.}.

The Letter of Intent was issued to the Successful Resolution Applicant on 29 December 2022 ^{44.Annexure T @ Pp 791-793 of the I.A.} which was unconditionally accepted by the Resolution Applicant.

In accordance with regulation 36B(4A) of the CIRP Regulations, the Successful Resolution Applicant has deposited the Performance Bank Guarantee on 05 January 2023.

The Applicant has filed a Compliance Certificate in prescribed form, i.e., Form ‘H’^{55.Annexure W @ Pp. 802-808 of I.A.} dated 05 January 2023 in compliance with regulation 39(4) of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016.

The Applicant has submitted details of various compliances as envisaged within the Code and the CIRP Regulations which a Resolution Plan should adhere to, which is reproduced hereunder:

The Resolution Applicant in Section X at Pages 66-67 has stated its eligibility under section 29A of the Code and has also filed an affidavit dated 10 September 2022 stating that the Resolution Applicant is eligible under section 29A of the Code.

The relevant information with regard to the amount admitted and the amount proposed to be paid by the Successful Resolution Applicant, i.e., Mr. Drishya Aggarwal, under the said Resolution Plan and the Addendum dated 06 December 2022 is tabulated hereunder:

The Resolution Plan defines “Effective Date” as “the date on which Resolution Plan is approved by the Adjudicating Authority”.

The Reliefs, Exemptions and Waivers sought by the Resolution Applicant from the Adjudicating Authority are set out below for the successful implementation of the Resolution Plan.

I.A. (IB) No. 411/KB/2023 has been filed by the unsuccessful Resolution Applicant under section 60(5) of the Code against the Resolution Professional, members of the CoC and the successful Resolution Applicant seeking the following reliefs:

Pursuant to the publication of Form G, the Applicant submitted its Expression of Interest vide its email dated 05 June 2022 to the Resolution Professional. Thereafter, the Resolution Professional vide email dated 22 July 2022 sent the list of Prospective Resolution Applicants, which constituted of the Applicant, Mr. Drishya Aggarwal and Mr. Sanjay M Sachpara.

The Applicant was provided with the documents in relation to Request for Resolution Plan (“RFRP”), Evaluation Matrix (“EM”) and Information Memorandum (“IM”) for the Corporate Debtor vide email dated 27 July 2022.

According to the Information Memorandum sent toe h Applicant, the CoC constituted of three financial Creditors, being Stressed Assets Stabilization Fund having voting share of 49.55%, Suzlon Synthetics Limited having voting share of 21.30% and Canara Bank having voting share of 29.15%. The list of CoC was updated wherein the voting share of Suzlon Synthetics Limited was increased to 37.24% as Suzlon Synthetics Limited claimed to be the assigner of Loans disbursed by IFCL.

The Resolution Plan submitted by the Applicant was discussed in the 5^th CoC meeting held on 14 September 2022 and certain clarifications were sought and the Applicant revised the Resolution Plan accordingly and the Fianl Resolution Plan was submitted on 19 November 2022. After several discussions the Applicant revised the amounts and submitted an addendum to the Resolution Plan.

The Resolution Professional vide email dated 26 December 2022 informed the Applicant that the CoC had rejected the Resolution Plan of the Applicant. The Applicant vide email dated 30 December 2022 gave an offer of Rs.40,00,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Crore only) to the Resolution Professional which was rejected by the Resolution Professional on 02 January 2023.

It came to the knowledge of the Applicant that Mr. Drishya Agarwal was the successful Resolution Applicant and had offered a sum of Rs.36Crore.

The learned Counsel submitted that the directors of Suzlon Synthetics Limited and Mr. Drishya Aggarwal are siblings. The increase of voting percentage was admitted on the basis of the assignment deed and were not reflected in the Financial Statements of the Corporate Debtor.

Further the Director of Suzlon Synthetics Limited, Mr. Kush Aggarwal has an NPA account with Canara Bank along with J And K Industrial Promotions Private Limited and the siblings of the successful Resolution Applicant are the Directors.

The learned Counsel argued that the resolution Plan of the Successful Resolution Applicant was done in collusion with Suzlon Synthetics Limited as Mr. Drishya Agarwal would have access to the resolution plans of the other Resolution Applicants.

The learned Counsel submitted that Mr. Drishya Agarwal is only 20 years of age and hence it not fit to be the Successful Resolution Applicant.

It is submitted that the Applicant is also involved in the business of textile industry and hence is in the best position to revive the Corporate Debtor.

The learned Counsel submitted that the Applicant, being the unsuccessful resolution applicant has participated in the entire process with sufficient and equal opportunities having been accorded to all the resolution applicants in the course of the CIRP to submit their respective resolution plan’s and to revise and/or improve on the offer under the resolution plan during the negotiations process. The Applicant, all through the CIRP, has not raised a single dispute as to the participation of the Respondent no. 5 in the CIR process.

The present I.A. has been filed as an after-thought after not having been able to secure the required voting percentage and adjudged the successful resolution applicant has now challenged the entire process. It is a settled proposition in law that one cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate at the same time.

It is submitted the applicant is a ‘third party’ and has no ‘vested interest’ in perusing a resolution plan rejected with 100% voting share of the Committee of Creditors. The unsuccessful resolution applicant is not ‘privy’ to the approved resolution plan and is not an ‘aggrieved person’ to the CIRP of the Corporate Debtor. The learned Counsel placed reliance on M.K. Rajagopalan v. S. Rajendran & Ors. [Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (INS) No. 58 of 2023], the Hon’ble Appellate Tribunal, Chennai Bench has observed as follows:

The learned Counsel further placed reliance on IMR Metallurgical Resources AG Through Mr. Sumit Agarwal (Authorised Representative) v. Ferro Alloys Corporation Limited & Ors. [2020 SCC OnLine NCLAT 1213] a three-judge bench has held as follows:

The following issues have been factually raised by the unsuccessful resolution application:

With respect to ISSUE-1, the learned Counsel submitted that has relied upon an e-mail dated 22 July 2022 issued in the course of the CIRP calling upon each prospective resolution applicant (“PRA’s”) to raise any objection to the inclusion or exclusion of a PRA together with supporting documents within 5 days i.e. on or before 27 July 2022.

However, no objections were received to the inclusion of the respondent no. 5 from either of the prospective resolution applicant’s including the Applicant. The Applicant, as a matter of fact, wrote multiple e-mail(s) to the answering respondent from 28 July 2022 to 19 August 2022 seeking certain clarifications and documents to facilitate the process of submission of the resolution plan. Upon the list of PRA’s having been finalized, the access to available information was made available to all PRA’s and the site visits enabled to enable them to file their respective resolution plan’s. In fact, even after issuance of the final list of PRAs no objections were ever received on the score of inclusion or exclusion of PRAs during the entire CIRP till the belated filing of the instant application for approval of resolution plan.

It is submitted that in the course of various meetings, the plan’s were discussed and equal opportunities were given to all the Resolution Applicant’s to improve their respective resolution plan’s. Following the entire process on the negotiations having been concluded, the Resolution Plan of the Drishya Agarwal, the successful resolution applicant stood approved without any protest or demur having been raised by the Applicant until communication of voting results.

It is submitted that even after the voting process was completed on 26 December 2022 and results informed to the Applicant No. 1 together with the other Resolution Applicant’s, no objection of bias was raised. The Applicant No. 1 revised its bid though an email with on line of offer on 30 December 2022 i.e. post the process having stood concluded and hence, the revision to the business plan stood rejected.

Earnest Money Deposit was refunded to the Applicant which also was accepted without any demur or protest. The Applicant did not have any objection or protest or demur to the process in the resolution of the Corporate Debtor but has only instituted the instant proceedings in an attempt to have its chance reinstated to acquire the Corporate Debtor

The Learned Counsel placed reliance on the judgment of Ebix Singapore v. Mahendra Khandelwal (Civil Appeal No. 3224 of 2020), the CIRP could not have been reopened and revised bids could not be considered after parties were given fair opportunity to place bids, it would become an unending process.

The learned Counsel submitted that the Resolution Professional has ensured that each member to the CoC has executed necessary confidentiality undertaking as are required under the provisions of the Code. It is reiterated that even after issuance of the final list, no objections were received from either of the prospective resolution applicants through the entire process.

The process adopted in regarding submission of plans with the answering respondent was that no resolution plans (or related documents) were shared with the CoC until the deadline for such submission had elapsed. Therefore, the plans were received by the Resolution Professional and disclosed to the CoC after the cut-off date of submission of plans or re-submissions post negotiations.

It is submitted that the revised claims were to be submitted by the prospective resolution applicants on 6 December 2022 up to 6 p.m., Mr. Drishya Agarwal submitted its bid at 5:36 p.m. and the Applicant submitted the same on 5:48 p.m. i.e. after the submission of bid by the successful resolution applicant, hence the contention that Mr. Drishya Agarwal got the benefit of submission of last claim and therefore could have improved on their offer is not tenable.

The learned Counsel argued that the Code contemplates a situation where any person being a Financial Creditor is eligible to vote on a resolution plan submitted by itself under section 30(5) of the Code. Since, the Code itself permits a financial creditor sitting on the Committee of Creditors to vote on resolution plan submitted by itself.

Moving on to ISSUE – 2, the learned Counsel submitted that in terms of an email dated 27 July 2022, the Resolution Professional updated the list of creditors together with their voting percentage after due verification of the claims and the same was also updated in the website being maintained by the Resolution Professional for the Corporate Debtor as well as on the portal maintained by IBBI.

The revised percentage share of each creditor was duly communicated to all stakeholders without there being any objection from any corners or more so by the CoC hereto. It is submitted that the Applicant itself has adopted the said voting share allocated to each financial creditor for the purpose of distribution of upfront sums under the resolution plan. Therefore, at this stage of the proceedings, the Applicant, being a ‘third party’ cannot be permitted to challenge the approval of resolution plan when it has itself participated in the process and adopted the voting percentage.

With respect to ISSUE – 3, the learned Counsel submitted that there is no disqualification of the Resolution Applicant on the basis of his age. Section 29A of the Code does not bar any person of 20+ years of age not to participate in a CIRP. Therefore, the apprehension of the Applicant is baseless and unfounded. The Applicant has neither indicated any provision of law to the contrary or made out any case of legal bar in the pleadings.

The learned Counsel submitted that CIRP was conducted in a fair, transparent manner and the resolution plan was approved by the Members of the CoC unanimously with 100% votes by exercise of its commercial wisdom. Therefore, there is no plausible case made out by the Applicant for 12 rejection of the resolution plan.

The learned Counsel submitted that the objections of the Applicant are that a related party i.e. the Director of the Financial Creditor and hence, the approval is done in collusion with the Successful Resolution Applicant. Another contention raised by the Applicant is that the Successful Resolution Applicant is 20 years old.

The learned Counsel submitted that firstly, there is no disqualification of Mr. Drishya Agarwal on the basis of his age under section 29A of the Code, hence the apprehension of the Applicant that Mr. Drishya Agarwal would not be able to revive the Corporate Debtor is baseless and unfounded.

The learned Counsel placed reliance on Arcelormittal India Private Limited v. Satish Kumar Gupta and Trimex Industries Private Limited v. Sathavahana Ispat Limited & Ors. and submitted that the related party of the Financial Creditor is not barred under section 29 A of the Code to submit Resolution Plan.

The learned Counsel submitted that as per section 30(5) of the Code, a Financial Creditor is entitled to submit a Resolution Plan and can also vote on it.

It is further submitted that no objection was raised by the Applicant during the deliberations and discussions of the Resolution Plans and has now raised an objection as an after thought.

The learned Counsel submitted that the CIRP cannot be reopened and revised bids could not be considered after parties were given fair opportunity to place bids and placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court Ebix Singapore v. Mahendra Singh Khandelwal and the judgment of the Hon’ble NCLAT in Indian Overseas Bank v Rathi TMT Saria Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

The learned Counsel submitted that the primary contentions of the applicant against the respondent no. 5 can be broadly categorized under the following heads:

a. The age of the SRA being 20 years. b. The representative of the financial creditor, Suzlon Synthetics Limited being the brother of the respondent no. 5 and Suzlon Synthetics Limited holding a 37% voting share in the CoC.

c. The sister of the SRA being the director in a company wherein the promoter/ director of the corporate debtor is also a director.

d. An added advantage of the respondent no. 5 who would know about the bids and timelines as stipulated in the resolution plans of other proposed resolution applicants since the brother of the respondent no. 5 is a part of the CoC.

The learned Counsel firstly disputed the locus of the applicant since, upon the approval of the resolution plan by the CoC in exercise of its commercial wisdom, the same cannot be challenged by a disgruntled prospective resolution applicant. It is pertinent to state that the resolution application was approved by 100% voting in favour of the said resolution plan by the CoC.

The learned Counsel submitted that there is no provision in the Code for disqualification of an individual on the basis of his age for submission of a resolution plan. The Successful Resolution Applicant is already a director in Silkon Industries Private Limited, Jyotsna Spintex Private Limited, Pellets Green Private Limited, Duotech Polypack Private Limited, Vardhamana Techno Engineering & Machinery Private Limited and Duotech Propack Private Limited. The Successful Resolution Applicant has been successfully discharging his obligations in the said companies.

The learned Counsel submitted that the brother of the Successful Resolution Applicant representing one of the financial creditors, Suzion Synthetics Limited in the CoC which holds a voting share of 37%, the Code does not lay down a bar for the brother of the Successful Resolution Applicant to be a part of the CoC through a financial creditor. Moreover, the financial creditor is a company and the brother is a separate entity representing the company and unless a specific case for lifting of corporate veil is made out, the said individuals are separate in eyes of law. Moreover, the voting of 37% would not be an issue in the present facts and circumstances since the plan has been approved by 100% voting in favour of the plan.

The learned Counsel submitted that the sister of the Successful Resolution Applicant being a director in a business where the promoter/director of the corporate debtor is also a director is also ill found. There is no bar in the Code for such a situation acting as an impediment for the Successful Resolution Applicant which would prevent the Successful Resolution Applicant from submitting a resolution plan for consideration of the CoC, merely because his sister is a director of in a company wherein the promoter/ director of the corporate debtor is also a director.

The contention raised by the Applicant after its plan was rejected upon consideration by the CoC and after the approval of the plan submitted by the SRA by the CoC that the SRA had an unfair advantage in the process with respect to the advantage in submitting a resolution plan is unsubstantiated.

The I.A. is a blatant abuse of the legal process by the Applicant wherein the sole motive of the applicant is to delay the resolution of the insolvency process. It is apparent therefrom that the plan was approved and the stakeholders were informed on 26 December 2022. The applicant, however, chose to approach this Adjudicating Authority through the present application only on 02 February 2023 i.e. after almost a month, as a last attempt to stall the time bound process of CIRP.

The allegation of purported bias has been raised by the applicant only as an afterthought and the same would be evident from the actions of the applicant whereby the applicant has been participating in the CIRP without raising any objection and chose to raise the objection for the first time after its plan was considered and rejected by the CoC.

Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Resolution Professional, Applicant in I.A. (IB) No. 411/KB/2023, CoC and Successful Resolution Applicant and perused the records.

MG Threads has raised an objection with respect to the approval of the Resolution Plan. Firstly, we would like to state that once the Resolution Plan has been approved by the CoC, the unsuccessful Resolution Applicant has no locus to challenge the commercial wisdom of the CoC.

Further, the unsuccessful Resolution Applicant participated in the CIRP after submission of its Resolution Plan and did not challenge the constitution of the CoC at that stage, it is only after rejection of its plan that it has come before us. The Hon’ble NCLAT has held in M.K. Rajagopalan v. S. Rajendran, RP Vasan Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. ^{66.(2023) ibclaw.in 191 NCLAT} that an unsuccessful Resolution Applicant has no locus to assail a Resolution Plan or its implementation. Similar view has been given by the learned NCLT, Mumbai Bench in G.S. Constructions v. Mr. Gajesh Labchand Jain^{77.(20233) ibclaw.in 481 NCLT}.

Even if we consider the said I.A., the contention raised by the unsuccessful Resolution Applicant is that the voting share of the Financial Creditor i.e. Suzlon Synthetics Limited increased to 37.24%, but that contention does not hold water as the Resolution Plan has been approved by 100% voting share. The CoC has approved the Resolution Plan of Mr. Drishya Aggarwal in its commercial wisdom with 100% voting share.

We do not find any substance or merit in the objections raised by the Applicant in I.A. (IB) No. 411/KB/2023.

We find that the Resolution Plan filed by Mr. Drishya Aggarwal has been approved by the CoC with 100% voting share. As per the CoC, the plan meets the requirement of being viable and feasible for revival of the Corporate Debtor. By and large, all the compliances have been done by the Resolution Professional and the Resolution Applicant for making the plan effective after approval by this Bench.

On perusal of the documents on record and the replies to the clarifications sought by us, we are satisfied that the Resolution Plan is in accordance with sections 30 and 31 of the IBC and also complies with regulations 38 and 39 of the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016.

As far as the question of granting time to comply with the statutory obligations or seeking approvals from authorities is concerned, the Resolution Applicant is directed to do so within one year from the date of this order, as prescribed under section 31(4) of the Code.

We have perused the reliefs, waivers and concessions as sought and as given in Section XIII at Pages 69-80 of the Resolution Plan, in this regard, we refer to section 31 of the Code and rely upon the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ghanashyam Mishra and Sons Pvt Ltd v Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd, ⁸ wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that once a resolution plan is duly approved by the Adjudicating Authority under sub-section (1) of section 31, the claims as provided in the resolution plan shall stand frozen and will be binding on the Corporate Debtor and its employees, members, creditors, including the Central Govt, any State Govt or any local authority, guarantors and other stakeholders.

The relevant part of the Ghanshyam Mishra judgment(supra) in this regard is given below:

⁸2021 SCC OnLine SC 313 decided on 13.04.2021. are the liabilities, that he may have to face and provide for a plan, which apart from satisfying a part of such liabilities would also ensure, that the Corporate Debtor is revived and made a running establishment. The legislative intent of making the resolution plan binding on all the stake-holders after it gets the seal of approval from the Adjudicating Authority upon its satisfaction, that the resolution plan approved by CoC meets the requirement as referred to in sub-section (2) of Section 30 is, that after the approval of the resolution plan, no surprise claims should be flung on the successful resolution applicant. The dominant purpose is, that he should start with fresh slate on the basis of the resolution plan approved.

We also place reliance on the recent judgement of Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan in the matter of EMC v. State of Rajasthan wherein it has been inter-alia held that :

On the date of approval of 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 part of the resolution plan. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also held that all the dues including the statutory dues owed to the Central Govt, any State Govt or any local authority, if not part of the resolution plan, shall stand extinguished and no proceedings in respect of such dues for the period prior to the date on which the Adjudicating Authority grants its approval under section 31 could be continued.

With respect to the waivers sought in relation to guarantors, the judgment of Lalit Kumar Jain v Union of India & ors,^{99.2021 SCC OnLine SC 396 decided on 21.05.2021.} wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held in para 133 that sanction of a resolution plan and finality imparted to it by section 31 does not per se operate as a discharge of the guarantor's liability shall apply.

In view of the above position of law, the Resolution Plan approved by CoC and being approved by this Adjudicating Authority shall be binding on the Corporate Debtor and other persons, authorities etc. as specified in section 31 of the Code.

With respect to the reliefs and waivers sought for all inquiries, litigations, investigations and proceedings shall be granted strictly as per the section 32A of the Code.

The Resolution Plan has to be consistent with extant law. The Resolution Applicant shall make necessary applications to the concerned regulatory or statutory authorities for renewal of business permits and supply of essential services, if required, and all necessary forms along with filing fees etc. and such authority shall also consider the same keeping in mind the objectives of the Code, which is essentially the resolving of the insolvency of the Corporate Debtor and enabling the Corporate debtor to stand on its feet again.

In case of non-compliance of this order or withdrawal of Resolution Plan, the payments already made by the Resolution Applicant shall be liable for forfeiture. Since the plan envisages infusion of Capex and as decided in the 15^th CoC meeting a definitive plan shall be put in place by the reconstituted board & implementation ensured. The reconstituted board of the Corporate Debtor shall be responsible for infusion of the capex proposed in the plan as envisaged.

Subject to the observations made in this Order, the Resolution Plan is hereby APPROVED by this Bench. The Resolution Plan shall form part of this Order and shall be read along with this order for implementation. The Resolution Plan thus approved shall be binding on the Corporate Debtor and other stakeholders involved in terms of section 31 of the Code, so that revival of the Debtor Company shall come into force with immediate effect.

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

The Resolution Professional shall submit copies of the records collected during the commencement of the proceedings to the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Board of India for their record and also return to the Resolution Applicant or New Promoters.

Liberty is hereby granted for moving any application if required in connection with implementation of this Resolution Plan.

A copy of this Order is to be submitted to the Registrar of Companies, West Bengal.

The Resolution Professional shall stand discharged from his duties with effect from the date of this Order, save and except the duties envisaged in the Resolution Plan.

The Resolution Professional is further directed to handover all records, premises/factories/documents to the Resolution Applicant to finalise the further line of action required for starting of the operation. The Resolution Applicant shall have access to all the records and premises of the corporate debtor through the Resolution Professional to finalise the further line of action required for starting of the operation.

In view of the above the I.A. (IB) No. 411/KB/2023 is hereby rejected and I.A. (IB) No. 172/KB/2023 and C.P. (IB) No. 1567/KB/2019 is allowed and shall stand disposed of accordingly.

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

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