Approval of Resolution Plan -Shivpriya Cables Private Limited

IA-53/ND/2025 in CP (IB)-437/(ND)/2023 Northern ARC Capital Limited vs. Shivpriya Cables Private Limited

PRESENT: For the RP : Adv. Vishal For the Respondent :

Hearing Through: VC and Physical (Hybrid) Mode ORAL ORDER I.A. No. 53/2025: The present application has been preferred by Mr. Sanjeev Chaudhary, Resolution Professional qua Shivpriya Cables Private Limited (hereinafter, referred to as the ‘Applicant/RP’) under Section 30(6) of IBC, 2016, seeking the following reliefs: a) “Allow the present Application and approve the Resolution plan submitted by Consortium of Rajesh Kumar Agarwal, Atul Kumar Garg and Rajbeer Punia approved by the Committee of Creditors of the Corporate Debtor with 94.69% voting in 12th CoC meeting dated 13.08.2025 voting concluded dated 18.08.2025; b) Declare that upon approval of the Resolution plan by this Hon'ble Adjudicating Authority, provision of the Resolution plan shall be binding on the Corporate Debtor, its creditors, guarantors, members, employees and other stakeholders members, creditors, including central government, state governments, the local authorities, other authorities and the successful resolution Applicant in accordance with Section 31 of the Code, and shall be given effect to and implemented pursuant to the order of this Hon'ble Adjudicating Authority; c) Approve the appointment of the monitoring committee as stipulated in the Resolution Plan and approved by the Committee of Creditors; d) Approve and grant reliefs and directions sought under the Resolution Plan by the Resolution Applicant;

IA-53/ND/2025 in CP (IB)-437/(ND)/2023 Northern ARC Capital Limited vs. Shivpriya Cables Private Limited e) Pass any such other and further orders as this Hon’ble Adjudicating Authority deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.” 2. Stating succinctly, the CP(IB) No. 437/ND/2023 was filed by Northern ARC Capital Limited (hereinafter, referred to as the “Financial Creditor”) seeking initiation of CIRP qua Shivpriya Cables Private Limited (hereinafter, referred to as the “Corporate Debtor”) in terms of the provision of Section 7 of IBC, 2016 r/w Rule 4 of the I & B (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016. The Corporate Debtor was admitted to CIRP in terms of order dated 07.12.2023 passed by this Tribunal and Mr. Kanti Mohan Rustagi (hereinafter, referred to as the “erstwhile RP”) was appointed as IRP. The Corporate Debtor is currently represented through its RP, Mr. Sanjeev Chaudhary, i.e. the Applicant here in the present application.

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

4. Subsequently, on receipt of claims pursuant to aforementioned Public Announcement, the erstwhile RP constituted the Committee of Creditors

IA-53/ND/2025 in CP (IB)-437/(ND)/2023 Northern ARC Capital Limited vs. Shivpriya Cables Private Limited (CoC) in terms of the provision of Section 21 of the Code and the first meeting of the CoC was held on 10.01.2024 wherein Mr. Kanti Mohan Rustagi was appointed as the RP qua CD.

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

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

7. According to the RP in the third meeting of the CoC held on 16.02.2024, the CoC approved the advertisement for Invitation of Expression of Interest (EoI) in terms of Regulation 36A of CIRP Regulations,

IA-53/ND/2025 in CP (IB)-437/(ND)/2023 Northern ARC Capital Limited vs. Shivpriya Cables Private Limited

2016. Consequently, on 20.02.2024, the erstwhile IRP published Form- G, which is enclosed as Annexure A-07 to the application.

8. In the application, the RP has submitted that in response to the aforementioned publication in Form- G, EoIs were received from the following three Prospective Resolution Applicants (PRAs): - I. Consortium of HR Commercials Private Limited, Sunrise Industries and Crown Steels; II. Consortium of Rajesh Punia, Atul Kumar Garg, and Rajesh Kumar Agarwal; III. Consortium of UV Stressed Assets Management Private Limited and Promod Sharma.

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

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

IA-53/ND/2025 in CP (IB)-437/(ND)/2023 Northern ARC Capital Limited vs. Shivpriya Cables Private Limited

10. It has been averred in the I.A. that during the 5th meeting of the CoC, the appointment of registered valuers under Regulation 27 of CIRP

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

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

IA-53/ND/2025 in CP (IB)-437/(ND)/2023 Northern ARC Capital Limited vs. Shivpriya Cables Private Limited

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

13. In the application, it is averred that in the 10th meeting of the CoC held on 02.01.2025, the Applicant/ RP placed the resolution plans before the CoC for approval. It is further stated by the RP that the PRA had deposited Rs. 50 Lakhs as performance security. It is also stated in the application that the CoC discussed that if the plan was not approved, then the committee would discuss the sale of CD as going concern as also the liquidation costs qua CD in the next meeting. Subsequently, the e-voting could take place from 03.01.2025(10 am) till 8 06.01.2025(8 pm) in terms of Regulation 25 r/w Regulation 26 of the CIRP Regulations, 2016 and as per the result of e-voting, the plan submitted by the Consortium of Rajesh Kumar Agarwal, Atul Kumar Garg and Rajbeer Punia (hereinafter, referred to as the “Successful Resolution Applicant”) was approved in terms of Section 30(4) of the Code with 94.69% voting share. The aforesaid factual developments has been noted in paras 26-27 of the application, which reads thus: - “26. That in the 10th CoC was held on 02.01.2025 wherein the undersigned has put the resolution plan before the CoC members for its approval which was received on 30.09.2024 from the PRA. The RP further informed that the legal opinion in terms of Section 30(2) of the IBC, had been taken and the performance security of IA-53/ND/2025 in CP (IB)-437/(ND)/2023 Northern ARC Capital Limited vs. Shivpriya Cables Private Limited

Rs.50 lakhs had been deposited by the RA and as such the Resolution plans dealt with interest of every stakeholders, like, Financial Creditors, Operational Creditors of the Corporate Debtor as per the requirement of Regulation 38(IA) of the CIRP Regulations and undertaking also have been obtained from the RA regarding compliance of Section 30(2) of the IBC, 2016 and Regulation 38 of the CIRP. 27. That the Resolution plans was placed before the CoC for voting and the resolution plan of Consortium of Rajesh Kumar Agarwal, Atul Kumar Garg and Rajbeer Punia approved was approved with 94.69% voting share by the CoC member on 06.01.2025. Copy of minutes of 10th CoC meeting along with voting results is annexed hereto as ANNEXURE A-21. XXX THE MINUTES OF THE 12TH COC MEETING ALONG WITH THE E-VOTING RESULTS DATED 18.08.2025, IN WHICH, AGAIN RESOLUTION PLAN APPROVED AS PER DIRECTION OF THIS TRIBUNAL. […]

[…]

IA-53/ND/2025 in CP (IB)-437/(ND)/2023 Northern ARC Capital Limited vs. Shivpriya Cables Private Limited

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

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

IA-53/ND/2025 in CP (IB)-437/(ND)/2023 Northern ARC Capital Limited vs. Shivpriya Cables Private Limited

16. The Applicant filed IA 09/2025 for approval of the Resolution Plan submitted by the SRA, which stands approved by the CoC. However, in terms of order dated 01.08.2025, this Tribunal observed that in some parts of the Resolution Plan it was mentioned that the “amount provided” therein would be distributed, while in other parts it is indicated that the “admitted amount” would be distributed. Although in both places the specific amounts are mentioned, making it clear that the same amount would be distributed, nonetheless this Tribunal sought certain clarifications and directed the IA-53/ND/2025 in CP (IB)-437/(ND)/2023 Northern ARC Capital Limited vs. Shivpriya Cables Private Limited

Applicant to rectify the inconsistency by replacing the words “admitted claim” with the expression “provided in the plan.” In view of that order, the plan was remitted back to the CoC for re-examination so as to enable the RP/SRA to rectify the clerical error and file a fresh application under Section 30(6) of the Code.

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

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

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

IA-53/ND/2025 in CP (IB)-437/(ND)/2023 Northern ARC Capital Limited vs. Shivpriya Cables Private Limited

IA-53/ND/2025 in CP (IB)-437/(ND)/2023 Northern ARC Capital Limited vs. Shivpriya Cables Private Limited

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

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

IA-53/ND/2025 in CP (IB)-437/(ND)/2023 Northern ARC Capital Limited vs. Shivpriya Cables Private Limited

IA-53/ND/2025 in CP (IB)-437/(ND)/2023 Northern ARC Capital Limited vs. Shivpriya Cables Private Limited

IA-53/ND/2025 in CP (IB)-437/(ND)/2023 Northern ARC Capital Limited vs. Shivpriya Cables Private Limited

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

IA-53/ND/2025 in CP (IB)-437/(ND)/2023 Northern ARC Capital Limited vs. Shivpriya Cables Private Limited

23. As per Section 30(1) of the Code, a resolution applicant needs to submit, along with the resolution plan, an affidavit under Section 29A of the Code to the RP, stating therein that he is not ineligible to submit the plan. In this regard, the affidavit under Section 29A of the Code has been submitted by each of the three consortium members of the SRA viz. Mr. Atul Kumar Garg, Mr. Rakesh Kumar Agarwal and Mr. Rajbeer Punia and the affidavits are enclosed as Annexure No. 31 to the application. In the affidavit, the each of the consortium members have declared that they are not disqualified from submitting the resolution plan. Since all the three affidavits are pari materia, the relevant excerpt from the affidavit filed by Mr. Atul Kumar Garg is reproduced herein below for reference: - 1. I understand that an insolvency resolution process has been initiated against Shivpriya Cables Private Limited (Corporate Debtor) vide order dated 21.10.2022 (Admission Order) passed by National Company Law Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (Adjudicating Authority) in an application filed by operational creditor against the Corporate Debtor under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (amended up to date) (IBC).

2. I state that the present affidavit is sworn by me on behalf of the Resolution Applicant, in compliance of section 29A of the IBC. 3. I on behalf of the Resolution Applicant and any other person acting jointly or in concert with the Resolution Applicant hereby confirm that: (i) The Resolution Applicant and any connected person as per the Explanation I provided under section 29A of the IBC is not an undischarged insolvent; or (ii) The Resolution Applicant and any connected person as per Explanation I provided under section 29A of the IBC IA-53/ND/2025 in CP (IB)-437/(ND)/2023 Northern ARC Capital Limited vs. Shivpriya Cables Private Limited is not identified as a willful defaulter in accordance with the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India issued under the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, or (iii) At the time of submission of the Resolution Plan, the account of the Resolution Applicant and any connected person as per Explanation I provided under section 29A of the IBC or an account of the corporate debtor under the management or control of such person of whom such person is a promoter, IBC is not classified as nonperforming asset in accordance with the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India issued under the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 or guidelines of a financial sector regulator issued under any other law at the time being in force and at least a period of one year or more has lapsed from the date of such classification till the date of commencement of corporate insolvency resolution process of the corporate debtor and that I have not failed to make the payment of all overdue amounts with interest thereon and charges relating to non-performing asset before submission of Resolution Plan; or (iv) The Resolution Applicant and any connected person as per Explanation I provided under section 29A of the IBC have not been convicted for any offence punishable with imprisonment for 2 years or more under any Act specified in the Twelfth Schedule or for seven years or more under any law for the time being in force or a period of two years has expired from the date of release of such imprisonment; or (v) The Resolution Applicant and any connected person as per Explanation I provided under section 29A of the IBC have not been disqualified to act as-a director under the Companies Act 2013; or IA-53/ND/2025 in CP (IB)-437/(ND)/2023 Northern ARC Capital Limited vs. Shivpriya Cables Private Limited (vi) The Resolution Applicant and any connected person as per Explanation I provided under section 29A of the IBC have not been prohibited by the Securities and Exchange Board of India from trading in securities or assessing the securities markets; or (vii) The Resolution Applicant and any connected person as per Explanation I provided under section 29A of the IBC have not indulged in preferential transaction or undervalued transaction or fraudulent transaction in respect of which an order has been made by the Adjudicating Authority under the IBC; or (viii) The Resolution Applicant and any connected person as per Explanation I provided under section 29A of the IBC have not executed a guarantee in favor of a creditor, in respect of a corporate debtor against which an application for insolvency resolution made by such creditor has been admitted under the IBC and no such guarantee has been invoked by the creditor or remains unpaid in full or part; or (ix) The Resolution Applicant and any connected person as per Explanation provided undersection 29A of the IBC are not subject to any disability, corresponding to clauses mentioned above under any law in a jurisdiction outside India.

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

IA-53/ND/2025 in CP (IB)-437/(ND)/2023 Northern ARC Capital Limited vs. Shivpriya Cables Private Limited

25. Regulation 38(1B) of CIRP Regulations, 2016 provides that a Resolution Plan shall include a statement giving details as to whether the IA-53/ND/2025 in CP (IB)-437/(ND)/2023 Northern ARC Capital Limited vs. Shivpriya Cables Private Limited

SRA or any of its related parties have failed to implement or contributed to the failure of implementation of any other resolution plan approved by the Adjudicating Authority at any time in the past. In this regard, a declaration has been given by the SRA at page 18 of the plan, which reads thus: - “As mandated under CIRP Regulation 38 (1B), the Resolution Applicant confirms that neither the Resolution Applicant nor any of its related parties have failed to implement or contributed to the failure of implementation of any other resolution plan approved by the Adjudicating Authority at any time in the past.”

26. Regulation 38(2)(a) of CIRP Regulations, 2016 provides that the plan should contain provisions for the term of the plan and its implementation schedule. In this respect, clause (C) stated at page 18 of the plan states that its implementation shall commence immediately from the date of receipt of the order of approval of resolution plan by this Tribunal. Further, the implementation schedule of the resolution plan is given at Clause X(5) of the plan. The relevant excerpt of the plan capturing the aforesaid details reads thus: - “C. TERM OF THE RESOLUTION PLAN AND ITS IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE The implementation of the Resolution Plan shall commence immediately from the date of receipt of the Order approving the Resolution Plan by the Hon’ble NCLT and completion of the implementation of the Resolution Plan shall be carried out accordingly subject to any appeal being filed, such period if any, delays the implementation of this Resolution Plan shall be exempted, subject to approval of the Hon’ble NCLT.” XXX

IA-53/ND/2025 in CP (IB)-437/(ND)/2023 Northern ARC Capital Limited vs. Shivpriya Cables Private Limited

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

The existing directors shall cease to be directors of the Corporate Debtor from the date of receipt of the Order approving the resolution plan by the adjudicating authority due to the acquisition of the Corporate Debtor by Resolution Applicant. The following shall be directors of the CD post-acquisition: 1. Rajbeer Punia, 2. Atul Kumar Garg and 3. Rajesh Kumar Agarwal” 28. Further, as per Regulation 38(2)(c) of said Regulations, the plan should also provide for adequate means for supervising its implementation. In this regard, it is apt to refer to Clause X(9) of the plan, which reads thus:

IA-53/ND/2025 in CP (IB)-437/(ND)/2023 Northern ARC Capital Limited vs. Shivpriya Cables Private Limited “9. MANAGEMENT OF AFFAIRS, SUPERVISION, MONITORING OF IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RESOLUTION PLAN The resolution applicant shall form a monitoring committee which shall act as supervisor for monitoring of the implementation of resolution plan from the date of approval of this Resolution Plan by the Adjudicating Authority till the RA has paid the amount as proposed to be paid to the creditors and towards CIRP Costs. The monitoring committee shall comprise of the following: a. Resolution Professional a.k.a. Monitoring Agent b. One member from the Committee of Creditors c. One representative of the Resolution Applicant Chairperson of Monitoring Committee a. Mr. Sanjeev Chaudhary proposed to be appointed as the Chairperson of Monitoring Committee ("CMC), on terms as agreed between the Resolution Applicant, the said insolvency professional and the CoC. b. The Chairperson of Monitoring Committee shall exercise all powers as were available to the Resolution Professional for the sole purpose of giving effect to the terms of the approved Resolution Plan. c. The term of office of the Chairperson of Monitoring Committee shall be with effect from the date of receipt of NCLT order till the RA has paid the amount as proposed to he paid to the creditors and towards CIRP Costs, unless extended by the Resolution Applicant for such period, and on such terms, as may be mutually agreed. d. The Chairperson of Monitoring Committee shall, in all actions, be guided by the advice and instructions of the Monitoring Committee. 1. Cost of Monitoring Committee

IA-53/ND/2025 in CP (IB)-437/(ND)/2023 Northern ARC Capital Limited vs. Shivpriya Cables Private Limited

The Expenditure/ Cost of the Monitoring Committee shall be borne by the Resolution Applicant as decided mutually by the Monitoring Committee and the Resolution Applicant. 2. INDICATIVE TIMELINES FOR IMPLEMENTATION

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

IA-53/ND/2025 in CP (IB)-437/(ND)/2023 Northern ARC Capital Limited vs. Shivpriya Cables Private Limited “8. TREATMENT OF AVOIDANCE TRANSACTION The creditors of the Corporate Debtor shall be the beneficiaries to the avoidance transaction and the amounts proposed shall be distributed among Operation Creditors as per their voting share. The above application shall be pursued by the RP or the CoC, as the case maybe. The RA shall pursue any avoidance application filed by the RP or the CoC after the approval of the Resolution Plan by the Hon’ble NCLT. The RA reserves its right to file such avoidance application as deemed to be necessary based on TRA report.” Furthermore, in Form - H, the Applicant/ RP has mentioned that no application under Section 43, 45, 50 and 66 of the Code is filed or pending before this Tribunal qua the CD.

30. As per the requirement of Regulation 38(3) of CIRP Regulations, 2016, a plan shall demonstrate that it addresses the cause of default by the Corporate Debtor, it is feasible and viable, has provisions for its effective implementation, has provisions for approvals required and the timeline for the same, and the SRA has the capability to implement the plan. In this regard, reference may be made to Clause II(D) of the plan which reads thus: “D. DECLARATION AS REQUIRED UNDER CIRP REGULATIONS […] Further, as per Regulation 38 (3) of CIRP Regulations: a. The Cause of default: The Resolution Applicant understands that the Corporate Debtor was admitted to CIRP the company has to operate at lower or reduced margins due to overall slowdown in the steel and iron sector and bleak economic IA-53/ND/2025 in CP (IB)-437/(ND)/2023 Northern ARC Capital Limited vs. Shivpriya Cables Private Limited scenario. The weak prices trends, coupled with lower demand had a direct impact on the operating profitability of steel manufactures in India. The power cuts and increase in power tariffs also effected the industry adversely.

Due to the above reasons the company’s performance was severely affected and finally terminated its operations from 2017. The Resolution Applicant proposes to run feasibility check in order to ascertain the cost of revival of the business of the corporate debtor and then accordingly bring in the required funds for proposed resolution. Thus, addressing the cause of default. b. Feasibility and viability of the Resolution plan: The Resolution Applicant has proposed Rs. 10,20,00,000 including CIRP costs (CIRP Cost will be adjusted against payment for Secured Financial Creditors, 9.70 Crore to Stakeholders of the Corporate Debtor, 0.50 Crore towards Capital Expenditure & Working Capital) towards resolution plan which will ensure efficient settlement of stakeholders’ claim and the growth of the target company by restarting the operations of the Corporate Debtor. c. Implementation: The Resolution Applicant has proposed a reasonable timeline for the effective implementation of the plan. Further, the monitoring committee will be formed and appointed to oversee that the plan is effectively implemented. d. Approvals: The Resolution Applicant has prayed the Adjudicating Authority to relieve it from obtaining approvals for implementation of this plan.

However, if any approvals are yet to be taken, the Resolution Applicant shall obtain the same within two years from approval of the plan or the time provided in such law, whichever is later.

IA-53/ND/2025 in CP (IB)-437/(ND)/2023 Northern ARC Capital Limited vs. Shivpriya Cables Private Limited e. Capability: The Resolution Applicant has a total net worth of around Rs. 17.99 Crores. The Resolution Applicant shall be successful at reviving the Corporate Debtor.” 31. As can be seen from Clause II(B) of the Resolution Plan, the SRA has stated that the plan is not in contravention of any law. The clause reads thus: - “B. DECLARATION THAT RESOLUTION PLAN IS NOT IN CONTRAVENTION OF PROVISIONS OF THE APPLICABLE LAW The Resolution Applicant hereby declares that the Resolution Plan does not contravene any provisions of Applicable Law.”

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

IA-53/ND/2025 in CP (IB)-437/(ND)/2023 Northern ARC Capital Limited vs. Shivpriya Cables Private Limited

IA-53/ND/2025 in CP (IB)-437/(ND)/2023 Northern ARC Capital Limited vs. Shivpriya Cables Private Limited

IA-53/ND/2025 in CP (IB)-437/(ND)/2023 Northern ARC Capital Limited vs. Shivpriya Cables Private Limited

IA-53/ND/2025 in CP (IB)-437/(ND)/2023 Northern ARC Capital Limited vs. Shivpriya Cables Private Limited

IA-53/ND/2025 in CP (IB)-437/(ND)/2023 Northern ARC Capital Limited vs. Shivpriya Cables Private Limited

IA-53/ND/2025 in CP (IB)-437/(ND)/2023 Northern ARC Capital Limited vs. Shivpriya Cables Private Limited

IA-53/ND/2025 in CP (IB)-437/(ND)/2023 Northern ARC Capital Limited vs. Shivpriya Cables Private Limited

IA-53/ND/2025 in CP (IB)-437/(ND)/2023 Northern ARC Capital Limited vs. Shivpriya Cables Private Limited

IA-53/ND/2025 in CP (IB)-437/(ND)/2023 Northern ARC Capital Limited vs. Shivpriya Cables Private Limited

IA-53/ND/2025 in CP (IB)-437/(ND)/2023 Northern ARC Capital Limited vs. Shivpriya Cables Private Limited

IA-53/ND/2025 in CP (IB)-437/(ND)/2023 Northern ARC Capital Limited vs. Shivpriya Cables Private Limited

IA-53/ND/2025 in CP (IB)-437/(ND)/2023 Northern ARC Capital Limited vs. Shivpriya Cables Private Limited

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

34. Besides, we note that in terms of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Limited Through Authorised Signatory vs. Satish Kumar Gupta & Ors. [Civil Appeal No. 8766-67 of 2019], it is the subject matter of commercial wisdom of CoC to take decision regarding the amount of bid offered by SRA and the scope for this Tribunal to interfere on such issues is negligible. The above view was also reiterated by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ebix Singapore Private Limited vs. Committee of Creditors of Educomp Solutions Limited & Anr. (Civil Appeal No. 3224 of 2020) wherein the Hon’ble Court ruled that the scope of examination of the application for approval of Resolution Plan by this Tribunal is confined to the provisions of Section 30(2) of IBC, 2016. Para 153 of the Judgment reads thus: - “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 IA-53/ND/2025 in CP (IB)-437/(ND)/2023 Northern ARC Capital Limited vs. Shivpriya Cables Private Limited

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.”

35. As far as the issue of reliefs and concessions which fall in the jurisdiction of different Government Authorities, and/ or are subjected to the provisions of different laws for the time being in force are concerned, it is made clear that the amount payable by the SRA in terms of the plan to different creditors, stakeholders, and to keep the Corporate Debtor as a going concern cannot be subject to any condition, assumptions, relief/ concessions and/ or qualification. It also needs to be underlined that the provisions of Section 31(4) of IBC, 2016 mandates the Resolution Applicant to obtain the necessary approval required under any law for the time being in force within a period of one year from the date of approval of the resolution plan by the Adjudicating Authority under Section 31 of the IBC,

IA-53/ND/2025 in CP (IB)-437/(ND)/2023 Northern ARC Capital Limited vs. Shivpriya Cables Private Limited

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;” (Emphasis Supplied) IA-53/ND/2025 in CP (IB)-437/(ND)/2023 Northern ARC Capital Limited vs. Shivpriya Cables Private Limited

36. In any case, in terms of the provisions of Sections 13 and 15 of the IBC 2016 read with Regulations 6, 6A, 7, 8, 8A, 9 and 9A of IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations 2016, all the claimants such as Operational Creditors, Financial Creditors, Creditors in Class, Workmen and Employees and other Creditors can raise their claims before the IRP/RP. The claims are dealt with by IRP in terms of the provisions of Section 18(1)(b) of the IBC, 2016 and by RP in terms of the provisions of Section 25(1)(b) thereof read with Regulations 12A, 13 and 14 of the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016. Thereafter, the RP prepares an Information Memorandum in terms of the provisions of Regulation 36(2) of IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016. The Memorandum contains inter alia a list of creditors containing the range of creditors, the amounts claimed by them, the amount of their claim admitted and the security interest if any in respect of such claims. As has been provided in Regulation 36(1) of the Regulations (ibid), the Information Memorandum is required to be submitted in electronic form to each member of CoC, on or before 95th day from the Insolvency commencement date. As has been provided in Regulation 36A of the Regulations the RP publish brief particulars of the invitation for Expression of Interest in Form G of Schedule I to the Regulations at the earliest i.e. not later than 60th day from the Insolvency commencement date, from interested and eligible Prospective Resolution Applicants to submit Resolution Plans. As can be seen from IA-53/ND/2025 in CP (IB)-437/(ND)/2023 Northern ARC Capital Limited vs. Shivpriya Cables Private Limited

Regulation 36B of the Regulations, the RP shall issue Information Memorandum Evaluation Matrix (IMEM) and request for Resolution Plans, within 5 days of the date of issue of provisional list of eligible Prospective Resolution Applicants (required to be issued under Regulation 36A(10) of the Regulations). It is with reference to such Information Memorandum Evaluation Matrix that the RP issues request for Resolution Plan. The request for Resolution Plan details each step in the process and the manner and purposes of interaction between the Resolution Professional and the Prospective Resolution Applicant. The Resolution Plan submitted after consideration of the IMEM and RFRP is then examined by the Committee of Creditors. Nevertheless, it needs to satisfy the requirements of Regulation 37 and 38 of the extant Regulations. Once the plan is approved by the CoC, in terms of the provisions of Regulations 39 of the aforementioned Regulations, it virtually becomes a contract entered into between the CD represented through RP, SRA and the Creditors of the CD. On being approved by this Adjudicating Authority, by operation of Section 31(1) of the Code, the plan becomes binding on the Corporate Debtor and its employees, members, creditors (including the Central Government, any State Government or any local authority to whom a debt in respect of the payment of dues arising under any law for the time being enforced such as authorities to whom statutory dues are owed, guarantors and other stakeholders involved in the Resolution Plan. Thus, Section 31(1) of IBC, 2016, takes care of most of the relief/concession/waiver solicited by the Resolution Applicant.

IA-53/ND/2025 in CP (IB)-437/(ND)/2023 Northern ARC Capital Limited vs. Shivpriya Cables Private Limited

37. Besides, in terms of the provisions of Section 32A, for an offence committed prior to the commencement of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, the liability of the CD ceases and the CD is not liable to be prosecuted from the date of approval of Resolution Plan by this Adjudicating Authority, if the Resolution Plan results in change of management or control of the CD to a person who was not 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.

IA-53/ND/2025 in CP (IB)-437/(ND)/2023 Northern ARC Capital Limited vs. Shivpriya Cables Private Limited

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

39. 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.

40. In any case, the SRA has also stated in the Resolution Plan that the plan is unconditional. Relevant excerpt of the same reads thus: - “XI. MANDATORY CLAUSE AS PER RFRP […]

IA-53/ND/2025 in CP (IB)-437/(ND)/2023 Northern ARC Capital Limited vs. Shivpriya Cables Private Limited

The Resolution Applicant hereby jointly and severally, and unconditionally and irrevocably agree and undertake to implement and give effect to the transactions contemplated in the resolution plan.” 41. Objection to plan could be preferred by Mr. Ayush Gupta, Suspended Director qua CD in the form of IA-290/2025. The salient objections espoused qua the plan can be summarized as under:- (i) The 10th CoC meeting held on 03.01.2025 was non-est and illegal as it was conducted after the expiry of CIRP period on 07.11.2024 and it is a settled position of law that if the CIRP period had expired, no plan could be considered without seeking extension from the Tribunal;

(ii) The RP had received the revised resolution plan on 13.09.2024 and the same was put to vote on 03.01.2025 i.e. after a period of 4 months, and during the period, there was not even a whisper from the RP of the fact that the revised plan had been received or the legal compliance of the same, which indicates arbitrary conduct of the RP;

(iii) Even though the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vijay Kumar Jain vs. Standard Chartered & Ors. has held that a copy of resolution plan must be given to the members of the suspended board, no copy of the resolution plan was provided to the Applicant despite requests made to the RP;

IA-53/ND/2025 in CP (IB)-437/(ND)/2023 Northern ARC Capital Limited vs. Shivpriya Cables Private Limited (iv) In the application filed by RP for approval of plan, there is no discussion on the fate of the plan submitted by other PRAs, thus the conduct of Respondents in arbitrarily considering only one plan and ignoring others is in clear breach of the provisions of the Code. In terms of Regulation 39(3) of CIRP Regulations, 2016, if the RP has received more than one resolution plan, then all such plans shall be voted upon simultaneously, however, this procedure was not followed by the RP;

(v) The CD is an MSME company and thus, the Applicant was liable to submit its plan, however, it was not allowed to do so;

42. In response to objection, the RP espoused thus:- (i) Regarding legality of the 10th CoC meeting held on 03.01.2025, it can be seen that the CoC in its 9th meeting dated 05.11.2024 resolved to extend the CIRP period by 60 days i.e. till 06.01.2025, with approval of 94.69% vote share. Consequently, the RP had filed I.A. 5461/2024 which could not be taken up on 26.11.2024 due to technical glitches and the hearing qua the same could be deferred to 16.01.2025. On 16.01.2025, the I.A. 5461/2024 could not be taken up due to paucity of time and was listed with other applications on 07.03.2025.

(ii) As per the clarificatory clause under Regulation 40(2) of CIRP Regulations, 2016, the RP is required to continue to discharge his responsibilities under the CIRP process till the application for extension is decided by the Adjudicating Authority. IA-53/ND/2025 in CP (IB)-437/(ND)/2023 Northern ARC Capital Limited vs. Shivpriya Cables Private Limited (iii) With regard to the averment of the Applicant that a copy of the plan was not shared, it is stated that there is no provision in the Code which stipulates that the copy of the resolution plan needs to be shared with the suspended management/ board.

(iv) With respect to the contention that only the resolution plan submitted by SRA was considered and voted upon in the 10th CoC meeting, it is stated that when an e-auction was conducted on 30.08.2024 under the aegis of the CoC, the consortium of SRA emerged as the highest bidder and agreed to submit a revised plan in accordance with the terms and conditions set by CoC. The other PRAs, however, did not submit their revised resolution plans. Thus, only the revised resolution plan submitted by the SRA was put to vote on the 10th CoC meeting.

43. The Applicant filed IA-09/2025 for approval of the Resolution Plan submitted by the SRA, which stands approved by the CoC. However, in terms of order dated 01.08.2025, this Tribunal observed that in some parts of the Resolution Plan it was mentioned that the “amount provided” therein would be distributed, while in other parts it is indicated that the “admitted amount” would be distributed. Although in both places the specific amounts are mentioned, making it clear that the same amount would be distributed, nonetheless this Tribunal sought certain clarifications and directed the Applicant to rectify the inconsistency by replacing the words “admitted claim” with the expression “provided in the plan.” In view of that order, the I.A 09/2025 gets disposed of and the plan was remitted back to the CoC for IA-53/ND/2025 in CP (IB)-437/(ND)/2023 Northern ARC Capital Limited vs. Shivpriya Cables Private Limited re-examination so as to enable the RP/SRA to rectify the clerical error and file a fresh application under Section 30(6) of the Code. Thereafter, the Revised Resolution Plan submitted by the SRA was filed through a fresh application i.e., IA 53/2025, which was approved by the CoC in its 12th meeting held on 13.08.2025.

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

45. Primarily, the contention of the Applicant in I.A. 290/2025 is that the 10th CoC meeting on 03.01.2025 was held after the expiry of CIRP period on 07.11.2024. Thus, the process of holding the meeting and considering the resolution plan is legally untenable. In this regard, it is pertinent to note that the Applicant/ RP had filed the I.A. 5461/2024 on 06.11.2024 for extension of CIRP period by 60 days w.e.f. 08.11.2024. When the I.A. was taken up on 26.11.2024, the RP, who was appearing virtually, was not audible and thus, the application was posted on 16.01.2025. The aforesaid fact was noted in order dated 26.11.2024, which reads thus: - “IA-5461/2024 & IA-5492/2024: Ld. RP who is appearing virtually is not audible. Let the application be listed for hearing on 16.01.2025.”

IA-53/ND/2025 in CP (IB)-437/(ND)/2023 Northern ARC Capital Limited vs. Shivpriya Cables Private Limited

Subsequently, when the matter was taken up on 16.01.2025, it could not be taken up due to paucity of time. The order dated 16.01.2025 reads thus: “It is already 4:35 pm. No time left. Let the matter be listed on 07.03.2025.” Furthermore, when the application was taken up on 26.03.2025, this Tribunal allowed the application. Relevant excerpt of the order dated 26.03.2025 reads thus: - “IA-5461/2024: Our attention is drawn to the Resolution dated 02.01.2020 to 05.11.2024, whereby the CoC resolved to file an application for extension of the CIRP period by 60 days from 08.11.2024. However, the Resolution Professional (RP) preferred an application for approval of the Resolution Plan on 08.01.2025. The learned RP, who is present in person, submitted that the CIRP period would stand extended only up to 08.01.2025. Accordingly, IA-5461/2024 is allowed.”

46. It is pertinent to note in terms of Section 23(1) of the Code, an RP conduct the entire corporate insolvency resolution process qua CD. Further, the proviso to the aforementioned provision further states that the RP shall continue to manage the operations of the CD after the expiry of CIRP period until an order approving the resolution plan under Section 31(1) of the Code or appointing a liquidator under Section 34 is passed by the Adjudicating Authority. The Section 23(1) of the Code and the proviso thereunder reads thus: - “23. Resolution professional to conduct corporate insolvency resolution process. — (1) Subject to section 27, the IA-53/ND/2025 in CP (IB)-437/(ND)/2023 Northern ARC Capital Limited vs. Shivpriya Cables Private Limited resolution professional shall conduct the entire corporate insolvency resolution process and manage the operations of the corporate debtor during the corporate insolvency resolution process period. Provided that the resolution professional shall continue to manage the operations of the corporate debtor after the expiry of the corporate insolvency resolution process period, until an order approving the resolution plan under sub-section (1) of section 31 or appointing a liquidator under section 34 is passed by the Adjudicating Authority.” 47. It is also relevant to note that in terms of Notification No. IBBI/2023- 24/GN/REG113 dated 15.02.2024 (w.e.f. 15.02.2024), a clarification was added under Regulation 40 of CIRP Regulations, 2016 that the RP shall continue to discharge his responsibilities under the corporate insolvency resolution process till the application for extension is decided by the Adjudicating Authority. The Regulation 40 of CIRP Regulations, 2016 along with the clarification thereunder reads thus: - “40. Extension of the corporate insolvency resolution process period. (1) The committee may instruct the resolution professional to make an application to the Adjudicating Authority under section 12 to extend the insolvency resolution process period. (2) The resolution professional shall, on receiving an instruction from the committee under this Regulation, make an application to the Adjudicating Authority for such extension. Clarification: It is clarified that the resolution professional shall continue to discharge his responsibilities under the corporate

IA-53/ND/2025 in CP (IB)-437/(ND)/2023 Northern ARC Capital Limited vs. Shivpriya Cables Private Limited insolvency resolution process, till the application for extension is decided by the Adjudicating Authority.” (Emphasis Supplied) 48. Thus, in terms of the provisions of Section 23(1) of the IBC, 2016 as also Regulation 40 of CIRP Regulations, 2016 RP is allowed to continue to discharge his functions after the expiry of the CIRP period in the circumstances mentioned therein. In the present case, when the CIRP period qua CD was expiring on 07.11.2024, the RP had filed an application for extension of the CIRP period from 08.11.2024 for a period of 60 days after approval of the CoC. Furthermore, the application could be allowed by this Tribunal in terms of order dated 26.03.2025. Thus, there is no infirmity in the conduct of RP in holding the CoC meeting during the pendency of the application for extending CIRP period.

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

IA-53/ND/2025 in CP (IB)-437/(ND)/2023 Northern ARC Capital Limited vs. Shivpriya Cables Private Limited b. To direct the Respondent No. 1/RP to place the Resolution Plan of the Applicant dated 24.09.2024 for the consideration of the Respondent No. 2/ COC; c. To quash the email dated 27.09.2024 of the Respondent No. 1/RP; d. To convene the COC meeting and consider the Resolution Plan of the Applicant dated 24.09.2024; e. Stay the further consideration of the Resolution Plan by Respondent No. 2/ CoC during the pendency of the instant application; f. Grant ad interim ex-parte relief in terms of prayer e) above; As per the IBBI (CIRP) Regulations, 2016, particularly Regulation 36, the Resolution Professional (RP) is required to prepare the Information Memorandum not later than the 95th day from the commencement of the CIRP. Further, in terms of Section 29 of the IBC, 2016 read with Regulation 36, a copy of the Information Memorandum is also made available to the members of the CoC, subject to an undertaking that the contents thereof shall be kept confidential. Regulation 36A of the Regulations provide for the invitation of Expressions of Interest (EOIs) by publishing Form-G. Form-G is to be published not later than 60 days from the commencement of the CIRP. Apparently, until the Expression of Interest is invited, the Information Memorandum may or may not be ready. In other words, the Information Memorandum, which is shared with the prospective resolution applicants in terms of Regulation 36B, along with the Evaluation Matrix and Request for Resolution Plan (RFRP), remains confidential. After issuance of the RFRP, the prospective resolution applicants (PRAs) who have submitted their EOIs in accordance with Regulation 36A are entitled to submit a Resolution Plan within 30 days. In the present case, however, the applicant neither submitted any Expression of Interest nor submitted any proposed plan before the expiry of the prescribed 30- day period.

IA-53/ND/2025 in CP (IB)-437/(ND)/2023 Northern ARC Capital Limited vs. Shivpriya Cables Private Limited

As can be seen from Regulation 36A(6) of the IBBI (CIRP) Regulations, 2016, even an EOI received after the period specified in the invitation under clause (b) of sub-regulation (3) is liable to be rejected. The said period, as per Regulation 36A(3)(b), is 15 days from the date of issue of the detailed invitation. Regulation- 36A(3) and 36A(6) reads thus:- “Regulation- 36A [...] (3) The Form G in the 118[Schedule-I] shall – (a) state where the detailed invitation for expression of interest can be downloaded or obtained from, as the case may be; and (b) provide the last date for submission of expression of interest which shall not be less than fifteen days from the date of issue of detailed invitation. (6) The expression of interest received after the time specified in the invitation under clause (b) of sub-regulation (3) shall be rejected.” In wake of the aforementioned, particularly in light of the provisions of Regulations 36A(3) and 6, read with Regulation 36B(3) of the IBBI (CIRP) Regulations, we find no merit in the application. Accordingly, the same is rejected.” 50. In the wake of the aforementioned order, the issue raised in I.A. No. 290/2025 alleging arbitrary action on the part of the RP in not allowing the Suspended Director to submit his resolution plan is without merit.

51. Another objection raised in I.A. No. 290/2025 is that the RP only placed the resolution plan submitted by the SRA before the CoC for voting at the 10th CoC meeting. This contention has been opposed by the RP by espousing that when the CoC, at the 8th CoC meeting on 27.08.2024, passed

IA-53/ND/2025 in CP (IB)-437/(ND)/2023 Northern ARC Capital Limited vs. Shivpriya Cables Private Limited a resolution for further negotiations with the 3 PRAs and only the SRA submitted a revised resolution plan which was subsequently submitted for voting at the 10th CoC meeting. Relevant excerpt of the minutes of the 8th CoC meeting, enclosed as Annexure No. 16 to the application, reads thus: - […]

[…]

IA-53/ND/2025 in CP (IB)-437/(ND)/2023 Northern ARC Capital Limited vs. Shivpriya Cables Private Limited

[…]

[…]

52. Thus, when the CoC in its commercial wisdom had sought improved/ modified proposals from the PRAs and only the SRA submitted such modified proposal, it cannot be said that the CoC ought to have voted upon

IA-53/ND/2025 in CP (IB)-437/(ND)/2023 Northern ARC Capital Limited vs. Shivpriya Cables Private Limited the resolution plan submitted by the other PRAs. It is also relevant to note that none of the other PRAs have raised any such objection to the approval of the plan submitted by the SRA. In the wake, the objection raised by the Suspended Director that the plan submitted by all the prospective resolution application should have been placed before the CoC for voting is without basis and deserves to be rejected.

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

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

55. 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;

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

IA-53/ND/2025 in CP (IB)-437/(ND)/2023 Northern ARC Capital Limited vs. Shivpriya Cables Private Limited these claims as per the provisions of the relevant law in an expeditious manner;

iii. Following steps would be taken in terms of the resolution plan: - SL. NO. STEP TO BE TAKEN TIMELINE FROM DATE OF RECEIPT OF ORDER 1. Constitution of Monitoring Within 7 days Committee 2. Acquisition of CD by SRA Within 30 days 3. Payment of CIRP Cost Within 120 days 4. Payment to Creditors Within 120 days 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;

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

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

vii. 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;

viii. 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;

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

IA-53/ND/2025 in CP (IB)-437/(ND)/2023 Northern ARC Capital Limited vs. Shivpriya Cables Private Limited x. Since the object of CIRP is to revive the CD, if any time within 5 years, the SRA would propose to part with the assets of the CD, it would give notice to the creditors in this regard.

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

56. 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.

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

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

IA-53/ND/2025 in CP (IB)-437/(ND)/2023 Northern ARC Capital Limited vs. Shivpriya Cables Private Limited