Approval of Resolution Plan - Mainframe Energy Solutions Private Limited

IN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI BENCH COURT-IV I.A.(IBC)/1577/2022 IN C.P.(IB)No.177/ND/2019 (Under Section 30 (6) and 31 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 read with Regulation 39(4) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016) IN THE MATTER OF: Mr. Devendra Lodha Resolution Professional of M/s. Mainframe Energy Solutions Private Limited … Applicant AND IN THE MATTER OF: Integrated Batteries India Private Limited …Operational Creditor Versus M/s. Mainframe Energy Solutions Private Limited …Corporate Debtor CORAM: SHRI MANNI SANKARIAH SHANMUGA SUNDARAM, HON’BLE MEMBER (JUDICIAL) SHRI ATUL CHATURVEDI, HON’BLE MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Order Delivered on: 28.11.2025 PRESENT: For the RP : Mr. Ruchir Batra, Mr. Gourav Saini, Advs. For the CoC : Mr. Dhruv Gupta, Mr. Avi Mitra, Advs. For suspended director : Mr. Gautam Singhal, Mr. Rajat Chaudhary, Advs. Page | 1 I.A.(IBC)/1577/2022 IN C.P.(IB)No.177/ND/2019 Date of Order: 28.11.2025

ORDER PER: MANNI SANKARIAH SHANMUGA SUNDARAM, MEMBER (J) 1. The present application has been filed by Mr. Ashish Singh, Resolution Professional (RP) of M/s Mainframe Energy Solutions Private Limited (‘Corporate Debtor’) under the provisions of Section 30(6) read with Section 31(1) of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (‘the Code’) read with Regulation 39(4) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 (‘Regulations’) for approval of the Resolution Plan in respect of M/s Mainframe Energy Solutions Private Limited (‘Corporate Debtor’) submitted by Successful Resolution Applicant (‘SRA’) namely Mr. Jitendra Narayan (one of the Suspended Directors of Corporate Debtor) on the ground that since the Corporate Debtor is MSME, the Suspended Board of Director is not ineligible to submit the Resolution Plan under section 240A of the IBC, 2016. 2. Brief Background of the Case: i. An application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (‘IBC’) was filed by the Operational Creditor i.e., M/s Integrated Batteries India Pvt. Ltd. against the Corporate Debtor M/s. Mainframe Energy Solutions Pvt. Ltd. and the said application was admitted by the order of this Adjudicating Authority dated 11.10.2019 and a moratorium was declared including the appointment of Mr. Deepak Kumar Gupta as an Interim Resolution Professional (IRP).

It is pertinent to mention that the copy of the said order dated 11.10.2019 came into the knowledge of the Erstwhile IRP only on 08.01.2020, as such, vide its order dated 07.02.2020, the Adjudicating Authority ordered the commencement of CIRP to be considered from 08.01.2020. Subsequently, an application bearing I.A. No. 3778/2020 for change of Erstwhile IRP was filed and the same was allowed by the Adjudicating Authority and thereby the erstwhile IRP-Mr. Deepak Gupta was replaced with Mr. Devendra Lodha as the Resolution Profession for Corporate Debtor. Page | 2 I.A.(IBC)/1577/2022 IN C.P.(IB)No.177/ND/2019 Date of Order: 28.11.2025 ii. Thereafter, the Resolution Plan was submitted by the Successful Resolution Applicant namely Mr. Jitendra Narayan (one of the Suspended Directors of Corporate Debtor) which was approved by the CoC on 06.01.2022 after the deliberations in the 13th CoC meeting held on 05.01.2022 under section 30(4) of the IBC by 100% voting share in respect of the CIRP of the Corporate Debtor after considering its feasibility and viability. 3. Background of the Corporate Debtor i. The Corporate Debtor i.e. Mainframe Energy Solutions Private Limited was incorporated on 08.01.2014 having CIN: U51101DL2014PTC263233 under the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013 having its registered office at 47, 2nd Floor, Rani Jhansi Road, Jhandewala, Delhi-110055.

4. Collation of claims by RP i. In terms of Section 15, 17 & 18 of the Code, the Erstwhile IRP made the Public Announcement which was published in newspapers i.e., Financial Express (English) and Jansatta (Hindi) Delhi dated 12.01.2020 in Form-A to invite the stakeholders for submission of their claims and the last date for submission of the claims was 21.01.2020. ii. Meanwhile, one of the Suspended Directors of the Corporate Debtor filed an appeal before the Hon’ble NCLAT against the order dated 11.10.2019. The Hon’ble NCLAT vide order dated 03.02.2020 issued notice to the Respondents and also directed the IRP not to constitute the CoC and also ensure that the Company remains as an on-going concern and take assistance of the (suspended) Board of Directors, paid Director and the employees" and adjourned the matter for 04.03.2020. iii. Further, vide order dated 04.03.2020, the Hon’ble NCLAT apprised about the settlement/MOU being executed between the Suspended Directors of the Corporate Debtor and the Operational Creditor.

Page | 3 I.A.(IBC)/1577/2022 IN C.P.(IB)No.177/ND/2019 Date of Order: 28.11.2025

Pursuant to the order dated 04.03.2020, the Suspended Directors of Corporate Debtor and Operational Creditor filed an I.A. No. 1907 of 2020 under section 12A of the Code before this Tribunal for withdrawal of the (C.P. (IB) 177/ND/2019) and for closing the CIRP against the Corporate Debtor. However, with the change of events, the terms of settlement/MOU arrived at between the Suspended Directors of Corporate Debtor and Operational Creditors were breached and the payments were not received by the Operational Creditor from the Suspended Directors of Corporate Debtor, as such, the Operational Creditor withdrew its consent given for the filing of application under Section 12A of the Code. The same application accordingly became redundant and thereby was dismissed vide order dated 24.07.2020. iv. Meanwhile, the IRP had been receiving and verifying claims and the Erstwhile IRP as per the provisions of the Code, constituted the Committee of Creditors on 16.03.2020 and accordingly filed a Report on Constitution of CoC before this Adjudicating Authority. v. It is pertinent to mention that the CoC raised objection against each CoC meeting that was conducted by the Erstwhile IRP and being dissatisfied with the conduct of the Erstwhile IRP, one of the then Financial Creditors of CoC, HDFC Bank Limited filed an application bearing I.A. No. 3778/2020 for change of Erstwhile IRP. That while hearing the said application, this Tribunal vide its order dated 17.09.2020 directed the Erstwhile IRP to file reply with report of Reconstitution on CoC as except HDFC Bank, other four CoC members were private parties who had advance deposits with the Corporate Debtor company. vi. In 4th CoC meeting conducted on 25.09.2020, Erstwhile IRP reconstituted the CoC with only HDFC Bank Limited as the sole Financial Creditor and having 100% voting rights.

Page | 4 I.A.(IBC)/1577/2022 IN C.P.(IB)No.177/ND/2019 Date of Order: 28.11.2025 vii. The total of 13 CoC meetings have been held during CIRP period as follows: PARTICULARS DATE OF COC MEETING 1st CoC Meeting 2nd CoC Meeting 3rd CoC Meeting 4th CoC Meeting 25.09.2020 5th CoC Meeting 05.11.2020 6th CoC Meeting 13.11.2020 7th CoC Meeting 07.12.2020 8th CoC Meeting 14.01.2021 9th CoC Meeting 20.02.2021 10th CoC Meeting 11th CoC Meeting 27.03.2021 12th CoC Meeting 02.11.2021 13th CoC Meeting 05.01.2022

5. Valuation of the Corporate Debtor The appointed registered valuers have submitted their reports providing the average fair value and average liquidation value of the Corporate Debtor as per the valuation report, whereby the Fair Value of the Corporate Debtor is Rs. 13,10,386/- and the Liquidation Value was Rs. 10,50,506/-.

6. Evaluation and Voting i. The RP published Form-G i.e., Invitation of Expression of Interest (EoI) on 01.03.2021 and fixed the following dates:

Page | 5 I.A.(IBC)/1577/2022 IN C.P.(IB)No.177/ND/2019 Date of Order: 28.11.2025 ii. Pursuant to the publication, the Applicant received around 7 inquiry mails for required document/eligibility criteria for submission of Expression of Interest, however no expression of interest was received from anybody. iii. 10th CoC meeting was held on 23.03.2021 wherein the Applicant proposed to reissue Form G, however, the said agenda was rejected by the CoC due to the reason that there was no further scope to run the company as there were no other asset of the Corporate Debtor in the custody of either the suspended director or the Applicant RP. iv. 11th CoC meeting was held on 27.03.2021 wherein agenda for filing of Application for Liquidation of the Corporate Debtor Company u/s 33 of IBC, 2016 to allow early disposal of the Corporate Debtor company was put up before the CoC and was unanimously passed by the CoC with HDFC Bank (being sole Financial Creditor) having 100% voting rights. v. During the course of proceedings, one of the suspended directors- Jitendra Narayan showed his interest in giving Resolution Plan to the CoC as the Corporate Debtor was an MSME company.

Though the said submissions were first objected by the Resolution Professional, as the CIRP period had ended and also no EOI was submitted by the Suspended Director-Mr. Jitendra Narayan when the EOI was issued, Page | 6 I.A.(IBC)/1577/2022 IN C.P.(IB)No.177/ND/2019 Date of Order: 28.11.2025 however, this Bench vide its order dated 06.10.2021 gave a last chance to the Suspended Director-Jitendra Narayan to place his proposal of Resolution Plan and orally directed the Resolution Professional to place the proposal of the Suspended Director-Mr. Jitendra Narayan before the CОС. vi. Pursuant to the directions of this Adjudicating Authority, the Suspended Director-Mr. Jitendra Narayan gave his proposal on 22.10.2021 through mail. However, the RP identified certain prima facie objections in the said proposal, which were duly conveyed to the said Resolution Applicant- Mr. Jitendra Narayan (one of the Suspended Directors of the Corporate Debtor) and he was instructed to remove the same. Thereafter, the Resolution Applicant submitted the revised Resolution Plan on 27.10.2021 through mail and submitted the physical copy of the same alongwith EMD of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only) on 28.10.2021. vii.

13th CoC meeting was held on 05.01.2022 wherein the CoC again discussed the Resolution Plan in detail and decided to intimate their final decision over mail on the next day. Thereafter, on 06.01.2022, the CoC through mail intimated its decision to the Resolution Professional unanimously approving the Resolution Plan and also intimated its decision on the other agendas. 7. Details of Resolution Applicant/Payment Schedule i. As per the Resolution Plan, the Resolution Applicant is Mr. Jitendra Narayan, Suspended Director of the Corporate Debtor having its residential address at 4/312, Ashok Mohalla Nangloi, Delhi-110041. The promoters started this company after working with leading companies like Motilal Oswal, Nirmal Bang securities & Reliance with a view of joining the league of environment friendly project inspired by National Solar Mission.

Page | 7 I.A.(IBC)/1577/2022 IN C.P.(IB)No.177/ND/2019 Date of Order: 28.11.2025 ii. The timeline for the implementation of the Resolution Plan is produced as follows: - iii. The Resolution Applicant has proposed a total plan value of INR Rs.26,03,258/- (Rupees Twenty-six lakh three thousand two hundred fifty-eight Only) for the Corporate Debtor, to be infused and disbursed on the Payment Date in accordance with the provisions of the Resolution Plan. iv. Strategy proposed by SRA as given in Resolution Plan is as follows: Page | 8 I.A.(IBC)/1577/2022 IN C.P.(IB)No.177/ND/2019 Date of Order: 28.11.2025 v. On perusal of the Casefile, we record that vide order dated 05.03.2025, the Adjudicating Authority had directed Mr. Devender

Page | 9 I.A.(IBC)/1577/2022 IN C.P.(IB)No.177/ND/2019 Date of Order: 28.11.2025

Lodha, Resolution Professional, to remain personally present on 24.03.2025. However, on that date, Learned Counsel appearing for Mr. Devender Lodha/RP, was physically present and sought a pass over, which was allowed. Upon recall at 03:30 p.m., none appeared and a second pass over was granted. Later, at 04:13 p.m., on further recall, Mr. Ruchir Batra again requested a pass over on behalf of the RP, while the RP remained absent, thereby demonstrating non-compliance of the directions dated 05.03.2025 and contributing to continued deferment of the Resolution Plan application, which was remaining pending due to multiple interlocutory applications requiring his personal participation. In view thereof, this Adjudicating Authority directed that his conduct be reported to the IBBI for appropriate action, and further directed him to remain personally present on the next date of hearing and to file an affidavit explaining his absence and the reasons for such conduct. vi. The matter was then listed before this Adjudicating Authority on 05.05.2025, wherein the prior directions of this Adjudicating Authority dated 05.03.2025 remained non-compliant; subsequently, on 19.05.2025, the Adjudicating Authority reiterated in its order that the role of the Resolution Professional is to facilitate and assist the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, while the Resolution Plan Application, IA/1577/ND/2022, continues to Page | 10 I.A.(IBC)/1577/2022 IN C.P.(IB)No.177/ND/2019 Date of Order: 28.11.2025 remain pending since 2022, primarily on account of the repeated and continued non-appearance of Mr. Devender Lodha/RP, despite express directions for his personal and physical presence issued on 05.03.2025, 24.03.2025, and 05.05.2025.

Thereupon this Adjudicating Authority determined that such conduct amounts to persistent and willful non-compliance necessitating reference to the IBBI for initiation of strict regulatory action; accordingly, while reporting the conduct of the Resolution Professional to the IBBI, the Tribunal directed the Committee of Creditors, comprising HDFC Bank with 100% voting share, to place the Resolution Plan for consideration, and further directed HDFC Bank to file revised Form- H for effective adjudication and convenience. Accordingly, HDFC Bank Limited in its capacity as 100% Financial Creditor of Corporate Debtor placed on record the revised Form-H. 8. Compliance of the Resolution Plan with various provisions: i. The HDFC has submitted the details of various compliances as envisaged by Sections 30(2) of the Code and Regulation 38 & 39 of CIRP Regulations as under: -

Page | 11 I.A.(IBC)/1577/2022 IN C.P.(IB)No.177/ND/2019 Date of Order: 28.11.2025

Page | 12 I.A.(IBC)/1577/2022 IN C.P.(IB)No.177/ND/2019 Date of Order: 28.11.2025

Page | 13 I.A.(IBC)/1577/2022 IN C.P.(IB)No.177/ND/2019 Date of Order: 28.11.2025

Page | 14 I.A.(IBC)/1577/2022 IN C.P.(IB)No.177/ND/2019 Date of Order: 28.11.2025 ii. Sources of Funds as stated in revised Form-H Compliance Certificate stated that RA will induct funds by taking loan from relative and business friends to run the said company. If more fund are required, the additional fund requirement will be met by taking loans from relative & business funds. iii. The Resolution Applicant confirms that, as on the date of the Plan and on the basis of the records of the Resolution Applicant, the Resolution Applicant is eligible under Section 29A of the Code to submit the Plan. In this regard, an affidavit dated 03.06.2022 providing the undertaking as per Section 29A of the Code has been duly submitted. The same has been annexed with the application. iv. This Adjudicating Authority vide order 19.05.2025 & 04.06.2025 directed the HDFC bank to file revised Form-H. In compliance of order dated, HDFC has filed a Compliance Certificate in prescribed Page | 15 I.A.(IBC)/1577/2022 IN C.P.(IB)No.177/ND/2019 Date of Order: 28.11.2025 revised Form-H in compliance with Regulation 39(4) of IBBI (CIRP) Regulations, 2016 and with an Interlocutory Application No. 3252 of 2025. 9. Details on Term, Management, Implementation and Supervision of the Resolution Plan 9.1 The Proposed Settlement of Dues Under the Proposed Plan are provided in Clause 3.8.2 which is as follows:

Page | 16 I.A.(IBC)/1577/2022 IN C.P.(IB)No.177/ND/2019 Date of Order: 28.11.2025

9.2 Further, Mechanism Regarding Management Control & Supervision of the affairs of the company is provided in Clause 3.8.3 of the Resolution Plan

Page | 17 I.A.(IBC)/1577/2022 IN C.P.(IB)No.177/ND/2019 Date of Order: 28.11.2025

Page | 18 I.A.(IBC)/1577/2022 IN C.P.(IB)No.177/ND/2019 Date of Order: 28.11.2025

10. Details on fraudulent and avoidance transaction i. The status of PUFE and how these are dealt in the resolution plan, if any are as follow: S.No. Type of Date of filing Date of order Brief of the How it is Transaction with of the Order dealt in Adjudicating Adjudicating resolution Authority Authority plan 1. Preferential 10.052021 Pending Pending No value transactions Adjudication Adjudication assigned u/s 43

Page | 19 I.A.(IBC)/1577/2022 IN C.P.(IB)No.177/ND/2019 Date of Order: 28.11.2025

2. Undervalued 10.05.2021 Pending Pending No value transaction u/s Adjudication Adjudication assigned 45 3. Extortionate 10.05.2021 Pending Pending No value credit Adjudication Adjudication assigned transaction u/s 50 4. Fraudulent 10.05.2021 Pending Pending No value transaction u/s Adjudication Adjudication assigned 66 5. Combination of 10.05.2021 Pending Pending No value PUFE Adjudication Adjudication assigned Transaction I.A. 1133/ND/2021: Application seeking directions for remitting/releasing/reversing the funds of the Corporate Debtor. I.A. 2218/ND/2021: Application in respect of Fraudulent and Wrongful Trading and such other provisions by the Suspended Directors. 11. Waivers, Reliefs and Concessions i. As to the relief and concessions sought in the Resolution Plan more specifically set out in 3.8.8 of the Resolution Plan, it is pertinent to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Embassy Property Development Private Limited v. State of Karnataka & Ors. in Civil Appeal No. 9170 of 2019. The relevant part of the judgement is reproduced herein below: - “39. Another important aspect is that under Section 25 (2) (b) of IBC, 2016, the resolution professional is obliged to represent and act on behalf of the corporate debtor with third parties and exercise rights for the benefit of the corporate debtor in judicial, quasi-judicial and arbitration proceedings. Section 25(1) and 25(2)(b) reads as follows: “25. Duties of resolution professional –

Page | 20 I.A.(IBC)/1577/2022 IN C.P.(IB)No.177/ND/2019 Date of Order: 28.11.2025 (1) It shall be the duty of the resolution professional to preserve and protect the assets of the corporate debtor, including the continued business operations of the corporate debtor. (2) For the purposes of sub-section (1), the resolution professional shall undertake the following actions: - a. …….. b. Represent and act on behalf of the corporate debtor with third parties, exercise rights for the benefit of the corporate debtor in judicial, quasi-judicial and arbitration proceedings. This shows that wherever the corporate debtor has to exercise rights in judicial, quasi-judicial proceedings, the resolution professional cannot short-circuit the same and bring a claim before NCLT taking advantage of section 60(5). 40. Therefore, in the light of the statutory scheme as culled out from various provisions of the IBC, 2016 it is clear that wherever the corporate debtor has to exercise a right that falls outside the purview of the IBC, 2016 especially in the realm of the public law, they cannot, through the resolution professional, take a bypass and go before NCLT for the enforcement of such a right.” In the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Embassy Property Development Private Limited (Supra), as to the waiver, relief and concessions sought in the Resolution Plan, it is clarified that this Adjudicating Authority is not inclined towards granting any such relief prayed for except for what is provided in the Code itself.

However, the Successful Resolution Applicant may approach and file the necessary application before the necessary forum/authority in order to avail the necessary relief and concessions, in accordance with respective laws. 12. FINDINGS i. This Adjudicating Authority finds that the Resolution Plan was submitted by the Successful Resolution Applicant namely Suspended Director Mr. Jitendra which was discussed in 13th CoC meeting held on 05.01.2022 Page | 21 I.A.(IBC)/1577/2022 IN C.P.(IB)No.177/ND/2019 Date of Order: 28.11.2025 and intimated their final decision over mail on the next day. Thereafter, on 06.01.2022, the CoC unanimously approved the Resolution Plan and no provision of the IBC is contravened. ii. We find that the Resolution Plan meets the requirement of being a viable and feasible and for revival of the Corporate Debtor. By and large, there are provisions for making the Plan effective after approval by this Bench. iii. It is observed that the Successful Resolution Applicant SRA in the Resolution Plan has not made any provision towards payment of the regulatory fee payable to the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (“IBBI”) under Regulation 31A of the CIRP Regulations, 2016, computed at 0.25% of the realisable value to the creditors.

In view thereof, the Adjudicating Authority hereby directs the SRA to remit the applicable regulatory fee to the IBBI in strict accordance with the provisions of law, within the prescribed timeline. iv. In so far as the approval of the Resolution Plan is concerned, this Adjudicating Authority is duty bound to follow the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of K. Sashidhar v. Indian Overseas Bank (2019) 12 SCC 150, wherein the scope and interference of the Adjudicating Authority in the process of the approval of the Resolution Plan is elaborated as follows: - “35. 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 manner in priority to the repayment of other debts of the corporate debtor, (ii) the repayment of the debts of operational creditors in prescribed Page | 22 I.A.(IBC)/1577/2022 IN C.P.(IB)No.177/ND/2019 Date of Order: 28.11.2025 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.” v. Also, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Limited vs. Satish Kumar Gupta & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 8766-67 of 2019, vide its judgement dated 15.11.2019 has observed as follows: “38.

This Regulation fleshes out Section 30(4) of the Code, making it clear that ultimately it is the commercial wisdom of the Committee of Creditors which operates to approve what is deemed by a majority of such creditors to be the best resolution plan, which is finally accepted after negotiation of its terms by such Committee with prospective resolution applicants.” vi. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Jaypee Kensington Boulevard Apartments Welfare Association v NBCC (India) Limited, (2022) 1 SCC 401 has held as under: Page | 23 I.A.(IBC)/1577/2022 IN C.P.(IB)No.177/ND/2019 Date of Order: 28.11.2025 ‘273.1. The adjudicating authority has limited jurisdiction in the matter of approval of a resolution plan, which is well-defined and circumscribed by Sections 38{2) and 31 of the Code. In the adjudicatory process concerning a resolution plan under IBC, there is no scope for interference with the commercial aspects of the decision of the CoC; and there is no scope for substituting any commercial term of the resolution plan approved by the Committee of Creditors. If, within its limited jurisdiction, the adjudicating authority finds any shortcoming in the resolution plan vis-à-vis the specified parameters, it would only send the resolution plan back to the Committee of Creditors, for re-submission after satisfying the parameters delineated by the Code and exposited by this Court.’ (emphasis supplied) The above view of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jaypee Kensington Boulevard Apartments Welfare Association v NBCC (India) Limited (Supra) is reaffirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its recent decision dated 21.11.2023 in the case of Ramkrishna Forgings Limited Vs Ravindra Loonkar, Resolution Professional of ACIL Limited & Anr., Civil Appeal No. 1527/2022. vii.

Thus, from the judgments cited and the statutory framework of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, it is evident that the scope of judicial review available to this Adjudicating Authority under Section 30(2) read with Section 31 is limited to assessing the compliance of the Resolution Plan with the prescribed legal requirements. This Authority is neither empowered nor obligated to delve into or evaluate the commercial wisdom of the Committee of Creditors (CoC), which is paramount and binding, provided it aligns with the provisions of the Code. Upon satisfaction that the proposed Resolution Plan adheres to the statutory mandates, including equitable treatment of stakeholders

Page | 24 I.A.(IBC)/1577/2022 IN C.P.(IB)No.177/ND/2019 Date of Order: 28.11.2025 and compliance with applicable laws, this Bench finds no impediment to granting its approval. 13. ORDERS i. Subject to the observations made in this order, the Resolution Plan with total plan value of Rs.26,03,258/- (Rupees Twenty-six lakh three thousand two hundred fifty-eight Only) along with affidavit and other documents connected to the Resolution Plan that have been filed by the SRA from time to time) is hereby approved. The Resolution Plan shall form part of this order. ii. The approved Resolution Plan as annexed shall be binding on all the stakeholders of the Corporate Debtor and 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 therein. The Resolution Plan shall form part of the order. iii. The Monitoring Agency, as provided in the Resolution Plan shall be set up by the Applicant within 07 days of passing of this order, which shall take all necessary steps for expeditious implementation of the Resolution Plan as per approval; iv.

The Moratorium imposed under section 14 of the Code shall cease to have effect from the date of this order. v. The Resolution Professional shall submit the records collected during the commencement of the proceedings to the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Board of India for their record. vi. MoA and AoA of the Corporate Debtor shall be amended and filed with the RoC for information and record as prescribed. While approving the Approved Resolution Plan as mentioned above, it is clarified that the Successful Resolution Applicant shall pursuant to the Resolution Plan approved under section 31(1) of the Code, 2016, obtain all the necessary approvals as may be required under any law for the time being in force within the period as provided for such in law. Page | 25 I.A.(IBC)/1577/2022 IN C.P.(IB)No.177/ND/2019 Date of Order: 28.11.2025 vii. Liberty is hereby granted for moving appropriate application if required in connection with the implementation of this Resolution Plan. viii. A copy of this Order shall be filed by the Resolution Professional with the Registrar of Companies, NCT of Delhi & Haryana. ix.

The Resolution Professional shall stand discharged from his duties with effect from the date of this Order, save and except those duties that are enjoined upon him for implementation of the approved Resolution Plan. x. The Resolution Professional is further directed to hand over all records, licences, plans, approvals of premises/factories/documents and all other relevant records relating to the Corporate Debtor, available with it to the SRA to finalize and co-operate on the further line of action required for starting the operation and implementation of this Plan. The Resolution Applicant shall have access to all the records, documents and the premises through the Resolution Professional to finalize the further course of action required for starting and running the operations of the Corporate Debtor on a clean slate basis. xi. The Registry is directed to send copies of the order forthwith to IBBI, all the parties and their Ld. Counsels for information and for taking necessary steps. xii. Certified copy of this order may be issued, if applied for, upon compliance with all requisite formalities.

ATUL CHATURVEDI MANNI SANKARIAH SHANMUGA SUNDARAM MEMBER (TECHNICAL) MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

Page | 26 I.A.(IBC)/1577/2022 IN C.P.(IB)No.177/ND/2019 Date of Order: 28.11.2025