Approval of Resolution Plan - AKME Projects Limited

CORAM: SH. ASHOK KUMAR BHARDWAJ, HON’BLE MEMBER (J) SH. ATUL CHATURVEDI, HON’BLE MEMBER (T) PRESENT: For the Applicant : For the Respondent : Adv. Tariq Munner, Adv. Chanchal Gupta, Adv. Mayank Chitkara in IA-2571/26 For the RP : Adv. Abhishek Anad, Adv. Karan Kohli, Adv. Vanshika Dhoot

ORDER PER: SHRI ASHOK KUMAR BHARDWAJ, MEMBER (J)

IA-2571/ND/2026

The applicant has preferred the captioned application praying therein:- “(a) Direct the Resolution Professional to file a detailed affidavit disclosing: (i) the allocation of assets and liabilities of the Corporate Debtor post the reconstitution of the COC and the shifting of the Akme Raaga Project to the CIRP of Grandstar, and (ii) the entries made in the books of accounts of the Corporate Debtor consequent to such shifting; (b) Set aside the entire process of approval of the Resolution Plan circulated prior to the reconstitution of the Committee of Creditors and reallocation of assets and liabilities;

IA-2571/2026 and IA-19/2026 in IB-55/ND/2018 Hari Kishan Sharma vs. AKME Projects Ltd.

(c) Direct the Resolution Professional to allow the Applicant to attend the meetings of the COC in terms of Section 24(3)(c) of the IBC, 2016, and to furnish to the Applicant copies of the agenda, minutes, and relevant documents of prior COC meetings; (d) Direct the Resolution Professional to disclose the basis for inclusion of Yes Bank's Penal Interest and other charges as part of the unsecured claims in the Resolution Plan, and to verify the same independently before the plan is placed for approval; (e) Direct that the Resolution Plan, before it is placed before this Hon'ble Tribunal for approval under Section 31 of the IBC, 2016, shall be in compliance with the mandatory floor under Section 30(2)(b) of the IBC, and that the amount payable to the Applicant shall be computed on the basis of the correctly verified claim and the applicable liquidation value thereof”.

2. The salient plea espoused in the application is that once project ‘Akme Raaga’ had been transferred out of the assets of the CD, the claim of Yes Bank could not have been continued against the CD. It is also the case of the applicant that the applicant being Operational Creditor could not have been denied the opportunity to participate in CoC proceeding. In reply to the IA filed on behalf of the RP, it has been espoused that the ‘Akme Ragga Project’ was a resident housing project, developed by the CD and to complete the project, the CD availed term loan of Rs. 60 Crores from YES Bank. In August 2014, the account of CD was declared as NPA by YES Bank, thus the Bank initiated process under SARFAESI Act and took possession of the project ‘Akme Ragga’. Nevertheless, the Bank gave an undertaking in the office of the District Magistrate, Gurugram to accept the liability qua the project towards

IA-2571/2026 and IA-19/2026 in IB-55/ND/2018 Hari Kishan Sharma vs. AKME Projects Ltd.

221 homebuyers. In terms of the undertaking, the money paid to the CD by 220 homebuyers was acknowledged and rights of homebuyers were secured by YES Bank Limited. In the process initiated by YES Bank under SARFAESI Act, the Grandstar emerged as Successful purchaser of ‘Akme Ragga Project’ with encumbrance. Thereafter, YES Bank issued sale confirmation advice and sale certificate in favour of the CD on 17.06.2016 and 19.07.2016 respectively, after receiving full payment. 3. Though, YES Bank viz. creditor qua the CD could avail its remedy under SARFAESI Act qua project Akme Ragga but its status as creditor and right to recover unsatisfied amount of debt to which it extended financial facility had not lost. Thus, there is no merit in the plea raised by the applicant that the claim of YES Bank should not have been considered by RP or CD. As far as the issue regarding participation of applicant in CoC meetings is concerned, as can be seen from the provisions of Section 24(4) of the Code, the directors, partners and one representative of the operational creditors as referred to in sub-section (3) may attend the meetings of the CoC but shall not have any right to vote in such meetings. 4. From the aforementioned provision, it is clear that only one representative of operational creditors is entitled to attend/participate in the meetings of CoC. It is the case of the RP that it sent e-mail dated 23.04.2026 to all the operational creditors to mutually deliberate and nominate a common representative who would attend the meetings of CoC on behalf of all the creditors. However, no mutually accepted representative had been nominated by the operational creditors. As can be seen from proviso to sub-section 4 of Section 24 of the Code, absence of any director, partner or representative of IA-2571/2026 and IA-19/2026 in IB-55/ND/2018 Hari Kishan Sharma vs. AKME Projects Ltd.

operational creditors from CoC shall not invalidate the proceedings of the CoC. Thus, nothing turns on non-participation of applicant in CoC meetings. 5. There being no merit in either of the pleas raised on behalf of the applicant, we are not inclined to grant the relief sought by him in the IA. The IA-2571/ND/2026 is found misconceived and devoid of merits, ergo, the same is rejected.

IA-19/ND/2026

6. The captioned application has been preferred under Section 30(6) of IBC, 2016 r/w Section 31 thereof and Regulation 39 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations 2016 seeking approval of the Resolution Plan. Copy of the Resolution Plan sought to be approved by the Applicant is placed on record as Annexure A-69 to the application. 7. As can be seen from Chapter-VI of the Resolution Plan, it provides:- the operational creditors as also dissenting Financial Creditors will be paid in priority over Financial Creditors; the plan will deal with interest of all the stakeholders including Financial/Operational Creditors; neither the Resolution Applicant nor any of its connected parties have ever failed to implement or contributed to failure of implementation of any other Resolution Plan approved by the Adjudicating Authority; the Plan shall be implemented within 12 months from the date of approval. The Resolution Plan also contains the provisions regarding management and control of the business of the Corporate Debtor during the term of Resolution Plan as also those for adequate means for supervising implementation of the Plan. The Plan also

IA-2571/2026 and IA-19/2026 in IB-55/ND/2018 Hari Kishan Sharma vs. AKME Projects Ltd.

provides that any recovery/realization out of the litigation shall be passed on for the benefits of the creditors of the CD in accordance with Section 53 of the Code. The Plan also demonstrates that it addresses the cause of default as also for feasibility and viability of the Resolution Plan. The relevant excerpt of Chapter VI of the Resolution Plan reads thus:-

IA-2571/2026 and IA-19/2026 in IB-55/ND/2018 Hari Kishan Sharma vs. AKME Projects Ltd.

IA-2571/2026 and IA-19/2026 in IB-55/ND/2018 Hari Kishan Sharma vs. AKME Projects Ltd.

IA-2571/2026 and IA-19/2026 in IB-55/ND/2018 Hari Kishan Sharma vs. AKME Projects Ltd.

IA-2571/2026 and IA-19/2026 in IB-55/ND/2018 Hari Kishan Sharma vs. AKME Projects Ltd.

IA-2571/2026 and IA-19/2026 in IB-55/ND/2018 Hari Kishan Sharma vs. AKME Projects Ltd.

IA-2571/2026 and IA-19/2026 in IB-55/ND/2018 Hari Kishan Sharma vs. AKME Projects Ltd.

8. The Resolution Plan also indicates the compliance of Section 30 (2) of IBC, 2016. It also mentions that the same is in due deference to the provisions of Regulation 37 of IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016. 9. There is also mention in the Resolution Plan that the SRA does not suffer from any of the disqualifications provided in Section 29A of IBC, 2016. The SRA has also addressed the cause of default. The relevant excerpt of the Plan reads thus:-

IA-2571/2026 and IA-19/2026 in IB-55/ND/2018 Hari Kishan Sharma vs. AKME Projects Ltd.

10. The Resolution Plan also take note of the claims of Creditors in Class (Allottes/Homebuyers). Relevant excerpt of the Plan reads thus:-

IA-2571/2026 and IA-19/2026 in IB-55/ND/2018 Hari Kishan Sharma vs. AKME Projects Ltd.

11. The Resolution Plan also make reference to the statutory dues, employees dues, dues of Operational Creditors and those of other creditors. The Resolution Plan also contains Financial Proposal by the RA. The relevant excerpt of the Plan reads thus:-

IA-2571/2026 and IA-19/2026 in IB-55/ND/2018 Hari Kishan Sharma vs. AKME Projects Ltd.

12. There is also provision made in the plan for payment of CIRP cost in priority as also IBBI Fee on Resolution Plan. The relevant excerpt of the Plan reads thus:-

IA-2571/2026 and IA-19/2026 in IB-55/ND/2018 Hari Kishan Sharma vs. AKME Projects Ltd.

13. The certificate furnished by the RP, certifying that the Resolution Plan is inconsonance with the mandatory requirements and provisions of law is available on record as Annexure A-76 of the application. In the certificate given by him, the RP has mentioned that the Resolution Plan could be approved by members of CoC with 91.82% voting share. In clause 7A of the certificate, the RP has mentioned that the value of the Plan is more than the fair value. The clause 7A reads thus:-

IA-2571/2026 and IA-19/2026 in IB-55/ND/2018 Hari Kishan Sharma vs. AKME Projects Ltd.

14. In clause 7B of the certificate, the RP has given the details of realizable value and distribution. The clause 7B reads thus:-

IA-2571/2026 and IA-19/2026 in IB-55/ND/2018 Hari Kishan Sharma vs. AKME Projects Ltd.

IA-2571/2026 and IA-19/2026 in IB-55/ND/2018 Hari Kishan Sharma vs. AKME Projects Ltd.

IA-2571/2026 and IA-19/2026 in IB-55/ND/2018 Hari Kishan Sharma vs. AKME Projects Ltd.

15. The affidavit furnished by the SRA under Section 29A of IBC, 2016 has been placed on record as Annexure A-77 to the application. The applicant has also transferred an amount of Rs. 2.25 Lakh to CD as Performance Security. The remittance advice has been enclosed as Annexure A-74 to the application. 16. 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: -

IA-2571/2026 and IA-19/2026 in IB-55/ND/2018 Hari Kishan Sharma vs. AKME Projects Ltd.

“153. Regulation 38(3) mandates that a Resolution Plan be feasible, viable and implementable with specific timelines. A Resolution Plan whose implementation can be withdrawn at the behest of the successful Resolution Applicant, is inherently unviable, since open-ended clauses on modifications/withdrawal would mean that the Plan could fail at an undefined stage, be uncertain, including after approval by the Adjudicating Authority. It is inconsistent to postulate, on the one hand, that no withdrawal or modification is permitted after the approval by the Adjudicating Authority under Section 31, irrespective of the terms of the Resolution Plan; and on the other hand, to argue that the terms of the Resolution Plan relating to withdrawal or modification must be respected, in spite of the CoC’s approval, but prior to the approval by the Adjudicating Authority. The former position follows from the intent, object and purpose of the IBC and from Section 31, and the latter is disavowed by the IBC’s structure and objective. The IBC does not envisage a dichotomy in the binding character of the Resolution Plan in relation to a Resolution Applicant between the stage of approval by the CoC and the approval of the Adjudicating Authority. The binding nature of a Resolution Plan on a Resolution Applicant, who is the proponent of the Plan which has been accepted by the CoC cannot remain indeterminate at the discretion of the Resolution Applicant. The negotiations between the Resolution Applicant and the CoC are brought to an end after the CoC’s approval. The only conditionality that remains is the approval of the Adjudicating Authority, which has a limited jurisdiction to confirm or deny the legal validity of the Resolution Plan in terms of Section 30 (2) of the IBC. If the requirements of Section 30(2) are satisfied, the Adjudicating Authority shall confirm the Plan approved by the CoC under Section 31(1) of the IBC.”

17. In the recent judgement of Torrent Power Ltd. v. Ashish Arjunkumar Rathi and Ors., (2026) ibclaw.in 109 SC, Hon’ble SC has categorically mentioned that commercial wisdom of COC is paramount. The relevant excerpt of the judgement reads thus:- “12. Having concluded that neither of the issues raised by the appellants establishes any modification of the Resolution Plan or any material irregularity in the conduct of the RP, the challenge stands stripped of its factual foundation. What remains is, in substance, a IA-2571/2026 and IA-19/2026 in IB-55/ND/2018 Hari Kishan Sharma vs. AKME Projects Ltd.

challenge to the commercial decision taken by the CoC. The IBC leaves no scope for judicial intervention even here.

12.1 It has been the consistent view of this Court that the commercial wisdom of the CoC cannot be interfered with by the NCLT, the NCLAT or this Court as was held in K. Sashidhar vs. Indian Overseas Bank, [(2019) ibclaw.in 08 SC] : (2019) 12 SCC 150 as under: “55. Whereas, the discretion of the adjudicating authority (NCLT) is circumscribed by Section 31 limited to scrutiny of the resolution plan “as approved” by the requisite percent of voting share of financial creditors. Even in that enquiry, the grounds on which the adjudicating authority can reject the resolution plan is in reference to matters specified in Section 30(2), when the resolution plan does not conform to the stated requirements. Reverting to Section 30(2), the enquiry to be done is in respect of whether the resolution plan provides : (i) the payment of insolvency resolution process costs in a specified mannerin priority to the repayment of other debts of the corporate debtor, (ii) the repayment of the debts of operational creditors in prescribed manner, (iii) the management of the affairs of the corporate debtor, (iv) the implementation and supervision of the resolution plan, (v) does not contravene any of the provisions of the law for the time being in force, (vi) conforms to such other requirements as may be specified by the Board.

The Board referred to is established under Section 188 of the I&B Code. The powers and functions of the Board have been delineated in Section 196 of the I&B Code. None of the specified functions of the Board, directly or indirectly, pertain to regulating the manner in which the financial creditors ought to or ought not to exercise their commercial wisdom during the voting on the resolution plan under Section 30(4) of the I&B Code. The subjective satisfaction of the financial creditors at the time of voting is bound to be a mixed baggage of variety of factors. To wit, the feasibility and viability of the proposed resolution plan and including their perceptions about the general capability of the resolution Applicant to translate the projected plan into a reality. The resolution Applicant may have given projections backed by normative data but still in the opinion of the dissenting financial creditors, it would not be free from being speculative. These aspects are completely within the domain of the financial creditors who are called upon to vote on the resolution plan under Section 30(4) of the I&B Code. xxx 58. Indubitably, the inquiry in such an appeal would be limited to the power exercisable by the resolution professional under

IA-2571/2026 and IA-19/2026 in IB-55/ND/2018 Hari Kishan Sharma vs. AKME Projects Ltd.

Section 30(2) of the I&B Code or, at best, by the adjudicating authority (NCLT) under Section 31(2) read with Section 31(1) of the I&B Code. No other inquiry would be permissible. Further, the jurisdiction bestowed upon the appellate authority (NCLAT) is also expressly circumscribed. It can examine the challenge only in relation to the grounds specified in Section 61(3) of the I&B Code, which is limited to matters “other than” enquiry into the autonomy or commercial wisdom of the dissenting financial creditors. Thus, the prescribed authorities (NCLT/NCLAT) have been endowed with limited jurisdiction as specified in the I&B Code and not to act as a court of equity or exercise plenary powers.” (Underlining by us) 12.2 Similarly, in Kalyani Transco, decided on 26.09.2025, a three- Judge Bench of this Court held as follows: “179. It can thus be seen that this Court has held that the legislature purposefully did not include a means to challenge the commercial wisdom exercised by the CoC. This makes a challenge to the same non – justiciable. It has been further held that a challenge cannot be raised against the decision making of the CoC unless and until the grounds for challenge as given in the Code are satisfied.

Any interference in the paramount objective of the CoC of exercising its commercial wisdom would amount to the Court rewriting the law and going against the very objectives of the IBC. 180. We are therefore of the opinion that in the present matter as well, the CoC exercised its commercial wisdom while approving the Resolution Plan whereby the Appellant – Jaldhi was classified as a contingent creditor and such a decision is deemed to be non – justiciable by this Court in view of K. Sashidhar (supra) which has been subsequently followed in a catena of judgments. The NCLT, and the NCLAT have also approved the Resolution Plan, and in light of the settled principle of law, we find no question of law being raised by the Appellant – Jaldhi and therefore, the appeal filed by it is liable to be dismissed.” (underlining by us) 12.3 We note the observations in Essar Steel India Limited, clarifying that once the NCLT is satisfied that the CoC has applied its mind to the statutory requirements spelt out in sub-section (2) of Section 30 it must necessarily pass the resolution plan, as under: “73. …Thus, while the Adjudicating Authority cannot interfere on merits with the commercial decision taken by the Committee of IA-2571/2026 and IA-19/2026 in IB-55/ND/2018 Hari Kishan Sharma vs. AKME Projects Ltd.

Creditors, the limited judicial review available is to see that the Committee of Creditors has taken into account the fact that the corporate debtor needs to keep going as a going concern during the insolvency resolution process; that it needs to maximise the value of its assets; and that the interests of all stakeholders including operational creditors has been taken care of. If the Adjudicating Authority finds, on a given set of facts, that the aforesaid parameters have not been kept in view, it may send a resolution plan back to the Committee of Creditors to re-submit such plan after satisfying the aforesaid parameters. The reasons given by the Committee of Creditors while approving a resolution plan may thus be looked at by the Adjudicating Authority only from this point of view, and once it is satisfied that the Committee of Creditors has paid attention to these key features, it must then pass the resolution plan, other things being equal.” (Underlining by us)

12.4 We also note the observations in Pratap Technocrats Private Ltd. vs. Monitoring Committee of Reliance Infratel Limited, [(2021) ibclaw.in 148 SC] : (2021) 10 SCC 623 wherein this Court categorically held as follows: “29. The jurisdiction which has been conferred upon the adjudicating authority in regard to the approval of a resolution plan is statutorily structured by sub-section (1) of Section 31. The jurisdiction is limited to determining whether the requirements which are specified in sub-section (2) of Section 30 have been fulfilled. This is a jurisdiction which is statutorily-defined, recognised and conferred, and hence cannot be equated with a jurisdiction in equity, that operates independently of the provisions of the statute. The adjudicating authority as a body owing its existence to the statute, must abide by the nature and extent of its jurisdiction as defined in the statute itself. 44. …the jurisdiction of the adjudicating authority and the appellate authority cannot extend into entering upon merits of a business decision made by a requisite majority of the CoC in its commercial wisdom. Nor is there a residual equity based jurisdiction in the adjudicating authority or the appellate authority to interfere in this decision, so long as it is otherwise in conformity with the provisions of IBC and the Regulations under the enactment.” (Underlining by us) 12.5 The issue is no longer res integra, the law having been settled that the commercial wisdom of the CoC enjoys primacy and cannot IA-2571/2026 and IA-19/2026 in IB-55/ND/2018 Hari Kishan Sharma vs. AKME Projects Ltd.

be supplanted by judicial review. Neither the NCLT, nor the NCLAT nor even this Court is empowered to substitute its assessment in place of the commercial decision arrived at by a requisite majority of the CoC. 13. The appeals before us typify the growing strategic use of the judicial system by unsuccessful resolution Applicants, who seek to reopen almost every commercial decision under the guise of procedural impropriety. This converts the corporate resolution process into a protracted adversarial contest and erodes the value of the Corporate Debtor. Such an approach incentivises delay, rent-seeking, and strategic obstruction and is fundamentally inconsistent with the economic logic and statutory design of the IBC.

13.1 In the present case, the Resolution Plan stands approved by both the NCLT and the NCLAT and has since been implemented, leaving absolutely no scope for intervention by this Court.” 18. In the wake of the aforementioned, once the CoC comprising of homebuyers has approved the Resolution Plan, there is hardly any scope for us to interfere with the same. We have already dealt with the objections raised by one of the Corporate Debtors. 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

IA-2571/2026 and IA-19/2026 in IB-55/ND/2018 Hari Kishan Sharma vs. AKME Projects Ltd.

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: “14. Moratorium. – (1) Subject to provisions of sub-sections (2) and (3), on the insolvency commencement date, the Adjudicating Authority shall by order declare moratorium for prohibiting all of the following, namely: - (a) ….. (b) ….. (c) ….. (d) the recovery of any property by an owner or lessor where such property is occupied by or in the possession of the corporate debtor.

Explanation.- For the purposes of this sub-section, it is hereby clarified that notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, a licence, permit, registration, quota, concession, clearance or a similar grant or right given by the Central Government, State Government, local authority, sectoral regulator or any other authority constituted under any other law for the time being in force, shall not be suspended or terminated on the grounds of insolvency, subject to the condition that there is no default in payment of current dues arising for the use or continuation of the license, permit, registration, quota, concession, clearances or a similar grant or right during the moratorium period;”

IA-2571/2026 and IA-19/2026 in IB-55/ND/2018 Hari Kishan Sharma vs. AKME Projects Ltd.

(Emphasis Supplied)

19. 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. In terms of the 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. The Regulation 36B of the Regulations provides that the RP shall issue

IA-2571/2026 and IA-19/2026 in IB-55/ND/2018 Hari Kishan Sharma vs. AKME Projects Ltd.

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. 20. 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

IA-2571/2026 and IA-19/2026 in IB-55/ND/2018 Hari Kishan Sharma vs. AKME Projects Ltd.

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 promotor 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. 21. 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 IA-2571/2026 and IA-19/2026 in IB-55/ND/2018 Hari Kishan Sharma vs. AKME Projects Ltd.

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. 22. 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. 23. In the backdrop of aforementioned factual position, discussion, analysis and findings, the IA-19/ND/2026 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” as also the Addendum/Affidavit thereto (supra) is approved. 24. However, in State Bank of India & Ors. vs. The Consortium of Mr. Murari Lal Jalan and Mr. Florian Fritsch & Anr. (Civil Appeal Nos. 5023-2024 of 2024), Hon’ble Supreme Court viewed that the NCLT should exercise discussion as regard to altering the binding terms of the Resolution Plan and the time line must be kept at a minimum. The para 176 of the order reads thus:-

IA-2571/2026 and IA-19/2026 in IB-55/ND/2018 Hari Kishan Sharma vs. AKME Projects Ltd.

“176. The IBC, 2016 is silent as regards the phase of implementation of the Resolution Plan by the Successful Resolution Applicant. This is mostly due to the fact that each Resolution Plan might be unique and customized to the specific needs of the Corporate Debtor and an excessive amount of statutory control over the implementation of the Plan may prove to be counterproductive to the cause of the Corporate Debtor. However, this has unfortunately led to the consequence of giving excessive leeway to the Successful Resolution Applicants to act in flagrant violation of the terms of the Resolution Plan in a lackadaisical manner. The SRAs repeatedly approach the Adjudicating Authority or the NCLAT for the grant of reliefs in relation to relaxation of the strict compliance to the terms of the Plan, including the timelines imposed therein. The NCLT and NCLAT more often than not, accede to such requests in exercise of their inherent powers under Rule 11 or their power to extend time under Rule 15 of the NCLT and NCLAT Rules, 2016 respectively. It is reiterated that the NCLT and NCLAT must not entertain such repeated attempts at violating the integrity of a CoC approved Resolution Plan by accommodating the incessant requests of the Successful Resolution Applicants. The exercise of discretion as regards altering the binding terms of the Resolution Plan, including the timelines imposed, must be kept at a minimum, at best. The NCLTs/NCLATs need to be sensitised of not exercising their judicial discretion in extending the timelines fixed under IBC, 2016 or the Resolution Plan, in such a way that it may make the Code lose its effectiveness thereby rendering it obsolete.”

25. As a sequel, we issue the following directions: - i. 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;

IA-2571/2026 and IA-19/2026 in IB-55/ND/2018 Hari Kishan Sharma vs. AKME Projects Ltd.

ii. 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; iii. When the ‘E’ would be the date of approval of Resolution Plan by this Tribunal, following steps would be taken in terms of the resolution plan: - SL. STEP TO BE TAKEN TIMELINE NO. 1. Payment of unpaid Actual CIRP costs E + 60 days (if any) 2. Payment to all Operational Creditors E + 60 days 3. Upfront Payment to Secured E + 60 days Financial Creditors 4. Upfront Payment to Unsecured E+60 days Financial Creditors 5. Upfront Payment to Unsecured E + 60 days Financial Creditors in class 6. Appointment of new directors in the E + 60 days board of corporate debtor and Removal of existing directors of corporate debtor 7. Extinguishment of all existing Shares E + 60 days and issue of fresh shares in f/o new board of directors 8. Deferred Payment to Secured E+12 months Financial Creditors 9. Deferred Payment to Unsecured E+12 months Financial Creditors 10. Defe rred Payment to Unsecured E+12 months Financial Creditors in class iv. 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;

IA-2571/2026 and IA-19/2026 in IB-55/ND/2018 Hari Kishan Sharma vs. AKME Projects Ltd.

v. The homebuyers would not be liable to pay any additional amount over and above Rs. 4 Cr. as CIRP cost. vi. The SRA shall act in terms of the provisions of Section 31(4) of IBC 2016; vii. The Monitoring Committee shall file progress report regarding implementation of the Plan before this Tribunal, every month; viii. 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; ix. 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; x. The RP shall intimate each claimant about the principle or formulae, as the case may be, for payment of debts under the Plan.

26. 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.

27. A copy of this order shall also be sent by the Court Officer and Applicant to the IBBI and RoC for their record.

Sd/- Sd/- (ATUL CHATURVEDI) (ASHOK KUMAR BHARDWAJ) MEMBER(T) MEMBER(J)

IA-2571/2026 and IA-19/2026 in IB-55/ND/2018 Hari Kishan Sharma vs. AKME Projects Ltd.