Approval of Resolution Plan - Siti Jind Digital Media Communications Private Limited

National Company Law Tribunal9 October 2025

CitationI.A/28/ND/2025 in CP IB-686/ND/2022

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

The Adjudicating Authority's approval of a resolution plan under Section 31 is confined to the limited scrutiny of Section 30(2): whether the plan provides for payment of insolvency resolution process costs in priority to other debts, repayment of operational creditors in the prescribed manner, management of the corporate debtor's affairs, implementation and supervision of the plan, and does not contravene any law for the time being in force; the Authority is not sitting in appeal over the commercial wisdom of the Committee of Creditors and cannot interfere with the commercial aspects of the CoC's decision or substitute any commercial term of the plan, and where the CoC has approved a plan with 100% voting, the commercial aspects need not be examined. Relief and concessions sought in a resolution plan that fall outside the Code, and which the corporate debtor would have to secure from a public law authority, are not to be granted by the Adjudicating Authority beyond what the Code itself provides; the successful resolution applicant must instead approach the competent forum or authority under the respective law to obtain such relief, since the resolution professional cannot bypass that route by invoking Section 60(5). Upon approval under Section 31(1), the claims as provided in the plan stand frozen and bind the corporate debtor and all stakeholders including governmental authorities, and claims and dues not part of the plan stand extinguished, with no person entitled to initiate or continue proceedings in respect of such claims.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

IN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNALNEW DELHI BENCH-V

I.A/28/ND/2025 IN CP IB-686/ND/2022 [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 ADITYA BIRLA FINANCE LIMITED …FINANCIAL CREDITOR Versus M/S SITI JIND DIGITAL MEDIA COMMUNICATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED …CORPORATE DEBTOR AND AND IN THE MATTER OF MR. HARVINDER SINGH RESOLUTION PROFESSIONAL FOR M/S SITI JIND DIGITAL MEDIA COMMUNICATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED … APPLICANT Order Delivered on: 09.10.2025 CORAM: SHRI MAHENDRA KHANDELWAL MS. ANU JAGMOHAN SINGH HON’BLE MEMBER (JUDICIAL) HON’BLE MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

APPEARANCES: For the RP : Adv. Amar Vivek, Adv. Aditya Gauri, Adv. Damini Srestha, Adv. Anant Jain, Adv. Aryan Chhabra

I.A/28/ND/2025 IN CP IB- 686/ND/2022 Order Delivered on: 09.10.2025

ORDER 1. The present application has been filed under Section 30(6) read with section 31(1) of the Insolvency and 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 (‘CIRP Regulations’) on behalf of Mr. Harvinder Singh, Resolution Professional (‘Applicant’) of M/s Siti Jind Digital Media Communications Private Limited (‘Corporate Debtor’), seeking approval of the Resolution Plan submitted by Mr. Sunil Dutt, Proprietor of Shiv Shankar Enterprises (‘Successful Resolution Applicant’) and approved by the Committee of Creditor (‘CoC’) in its 11th meeting held on 28.03.2025 with 100% voting in favor by show of hands.

2. Briefly stated facts as averred by the Applicant are as follows:

a) The CIRP was initiated against M/s Siti Jind Digital Media Communications Private Limited (‘Corporate Debtor’) by the Adjudicating Authority’s order dated 22.03.2024 in C.P IB-686/ND/2022, under Section 7 of the Code and Mr. Harvinder Singh was appointed as the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) of the Corporate Debtor. The CoC in its 1st Meeting confirmed the appointment of Mr. Harvinder Singh as the Resolution Professional. b) The Applicant issued a Public Announcement in FORM-A on 27.03.2024, for inviting claims from the creditors of the Corporate Debtor, in two newspapers namely-Financial Express (English Language) and Jan Satta, (Hindi Language) and the last date for submission of claims was specified as 06.04.2024. In terms of Section 18(1)(a) of the Code, the Applicant collated all claims submitted by the creditors of the Corporate Debtor pursuant to the publication of Form-A dated 27.03.2024, and after determination of the financial positions of the Corporate Debtor, the Applicant constituted a Committee of Creditors (“CoC”) on 12.04.2024, in compliance of the Regulation 17(1) of the CIRP Regulations with the following members:

I.A/28/ND/2025 IN CP IB- 686/ND/2022 Order Delivered on: 09.10.2025 c) In 2nd CoC meeting held on 17.05.2024, upon due deliberation, the CoC approved the agenda for the publication of Expression of Interest (Form G) and authorized the Applicant to publish the same in two widely circulated newspapers to invite Expressions of Interest (EOIs). The CoC also approved the eligibility criteria for Prospective Resolution Applicants (PRAs) and ratified the appointment of registered valuers along with their fees for conducting the valuation of the Corporate Debtor’s assets. d) The Applicant published Form-G dated 21.05.2024 in two newspapers in terms of Regulation 36A (1) of the CIRP Regulations. The last date to submit the EOI was 05.06.2024. Thereafter, the 3rd CoC meeting was convened on 13.06.2024. The status of claims was reviewed, and it was noted that, as of the last date of submission of Expressions of Interest (EOI) on 05.06.2024, only one EOI had been received from M/s SPSS Infrastructure Private Limited. To enhance participation and maximize the value of the Corporate Debtor, the CoC resolved to extend the last date of EOI submission by 30 days, from 13.06.2024 to 13.07.2024. e) In the 4th CoC meeting held on 18.07.2024, the Applicant had informed the members that in response to the issuance of Form-G and the corrigendum thereto, Expressions of Interest (EoIs) had been received from three Prospective Resolution Applicants (PRAs). The identified PRAs were as follows: i. M/s SPSS Infrastructure Private Limited ii. M/s Real Value Infotech Projects Private Limited iii. Mr. Anuj Goyal

I.A/28/ND/2025 IN CP IB- 686/ND/2022 Order Delivered on: 09.10.2025 f) The Applicant had received an Expression of Interest from M/s Cyfuture India Pvt. Ltd. on 16.07.2024, which was after prescribed deadline for submission of EoIs i.e., 13.07.2024 and the said EOI could not be considered by the RP. However, in light of the potential benefit to stakeholders and the demonstrable seriousness of the prospective resolution applicant, the Applicant sought CoC’s approval for an extension of the timeline for submission of EOIs and /or the Republication of Form-G. Pursuant to the CoC’s approval, the Applicant herein republished Form G in two newspapers—Financial Express (English) and Jansatta (Hindi) on 20.07.2024. g) The Applicant convened 5th meeting of CoC on 04.08.2024, during which the Applicant apprised the Members of CoC that a total four (4) Expression of Interest (“EOIs”) had been received by the Resolution Professional, all of which were found to be eligible for submission of resolution plans. Accordingly, the Applicant had presented the list of Prospective Resolution Applicants (PRAs) to the Committee on 05.08.2024, and no objections had been raised. h) The original deadline for submission was 06.09.2024. In the 6th CoC meeting held on 11.09.2024, the Applicant herein apprised the CoC of the fact that Cyfuture India Private Limited, one of the PRA, had requested an extension of the deadline for submitting the Resolution Plan by an additional 30 days via email dated 04.09.2024. However, no Resolution Plan had been received by that date. Consequently, the agenda for extending the submission deadline to 26.09.2024 was discussed and approved by the CoC. Pursuant to this approval, the last date for submission of Resolution Plans was extended by 15 days, from 11.09.2024 to 26.09.2024. i) During the 7th meeting held on 30.11.2024, despite receiving EOIs, the PRAs have failed to submit their Resolution Plans within the stipulated timelines. Consequently, the CIRP could not progress to the evaluation and approval stage by the Committee of Creditors (CoC) within the statutory period of 270 days and Applicant further apprised the CoC that the 270-days CIRP period was set to expire on 16.12.2024. In light of the above, the Applicant placed an agenda before the CoC for approval of a 60-days extension beyond the 270-days CIRP

I.A/28/ND/2025 IN CP IB- 686/ND/2022 Order Delivered on: 09.10.2025 period, and the same was approved by the CoC. IA-6068/2024 was filed before this Adjudicating Authority seeking extension for further 60 days, which was allowed by this Adjudicating Authority vide Order dated 18.12.2024. Accordingly, the last date of CIRP was extended to 14.02.2025. j) The Applicant had re-published the Form G on 02.12.2024. The Applicant called and convened the 8th meeting of Committee of Creditors (CoC) on 29.01.2025, wherein, the Resolution Professional (RP) apprised the members that requests had been received from various Perspective Resolution Applicants (PRAs) seeking an extension of the last date for submission of Resolution Plans beyond 27.01.2025, where the two other PRAs, namely M/s Cyfuture India Private Limited and Mr. Sunil Dutt, had sought extensions of four weeks and one week, respectively. After deliberations, the CoC considered the requests, and the extension for submission of Resolution Plans until 07.02.2025 was approved by the CoC. k) The 330-day period for completion of CIRP was to expire on 14.02.2025.

The CoC approved the resolution for extension of 60 days for the completion of CIRP and in light of the same I.A. 884 of 2025 was filed before the Adjudicating Authority seeking extension for further 60 days, which was allowed by this Adjudicating Authority vide order dated 21.02.2025. Accordingly, the last date of CIRP was extended to 15.04.2025. l) During the 9th CoC meeting held on 10.02.2025, the Applicant had apprised the CoC regarding the Resolution Plan submitted by the PRA, Mr. Sunil Dutt within the stipulated deadline i.e. 07.02.2025, being the last date for submission of Resolution Plan. The said Resolution Plan submitted by Mr. Sunil Dutt proposed a Resolution Plan of Rs. 40,00,000 (Rupees Forty Lakhs Only) with a tenure of 60 days and infusion of Capital Expenditure and Working-Capital Expenditure of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five-Lakhs Only) respectively in form of unsecured loans within 6 months from the effective date, and also deposited the Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) of Rs. 20,00,000 (Rupees Twenty Lakhs Only). m) In the 10th CoC meeting held on 24.02.2025, Mr. Sunil Dutt, was invited for negotiations.

The Applicant herein had apprised the CoC that all findings and I.A/28/ND/2025 IN CP IB- 686/ND/2022 Order Delivered on: 09.10.2025 shortcomings in the Resolution Plan had been communicated to the Resolution Applicant via email dated 17.02.2025. The RA, vide email dated 18.02.2025, confirmed his agreement to incorporate all the observations in the modified Resolution Plan. n) In the 11th CoC meeting held on 28.03.2025, the CoC Members were apprised that the modified Resolution Plan had been submitted by the eligible Prospective Resolution Applicant (PRA) to the Resolution Professional (RP) via email dated 26.03.2025. Consequently, an agenda for consideration of approval or rejection of the modified Resolution Plan was placed before the CoC. The RP also informed the CoC that the professional appointed for the purpose of eligibility verification under section 29A of the Code, as well as for legal vetting of the Resolution Plan, had opined the following: i. The Resolution Plan submitted by the PRA is compliant with the provisions of Section 30(3) of the IBC, 2016; and ii. The PRA satisfies the eligibility as prescribed under Section 29A of the IBC, 2016. o) Accordingly, after due deliberation, the following agenda for approval of the modified Resolution Plan dated 26.03.2025, submitted by Mr. Sunil Dutt, and to authorize the RP to file an appropriate application under Section 31 of the Code before the Adjudicating Authority, was unanimously approved by the CoC, with 100% votes in favour, by a show of hands. p) As per the provisions Clause 10(viii) of the Plan, a Monitoring Committee shall be constituted comprising of one representative of the RA, one representative of the CoC and the Insolvency Professional/Resolution Professional and the committee shall monitor the implementation of the Plan after the Effective date and until the term of implementation of plan. q) The Resolution Professional has placed on record Section 29A affidavit dated 06.02.2025 obtained from the SRA and confirmed that the SRA is eligible under the provisions of Section 29A of the Code.

3. We have heard the submissions made by the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant and have carefully gone through the documents produced on record.

I.A/28/ND/2025 IN CP IB- 686/ND/2022 Order Delivered on: 09.10.2025

4. The salient features of the resolution plan submitted by Mr. Sunil Dutt (Proprietor of Shiv Shankar Enterprises) (‘Successful Resolution Applicant’), are as follows: - a) The amount proposed to be paid towards the Corporate Insolvency Resolution of the Corporate Debtor pursuant to the implementation of the proposed Resolution Plan is as under:

b) The average fair value and liquidation value of the Corporate Debtor is herein below:

c) That the RA has provided the indicative timeline of events for implementation of the Resolution Plan at page 51-52 which is reproduced as under: -

I.A/28/ND/2025 IN CP IB- 686/ND/2022 Order Delivered on: 09.10.2025 d) In respect of compliance regarding Regulation 39(4) of the CIRP Regulations, the Applicant has filed compliance certificate in Form-H annexed at Annexure 23 at Volume IV (Page 572-603) of the Application, certifying that the Resolution Plan submitted by the Successful Resolution Applicant meets the requirements as laid down in various sections of the Code and the CIRP Regulations and there are sufficient provisions in the Plan for its effective implementation as required under the Code. The same is extracted as under:

I.A/28/ND/2025 IN CP IB- 686/ND/2022 Order Delivered on: 09.10.2025

FINDINGS OF THIS ADJUDICATING AUTHORITY 5. The Applicant/Resolution Professional has filed the instant application seeking approval of the Resolution Plan submitted by Mr. Sunil Dutt (Proprietor of Shiv Shankar Enterprises) which was approved by the CoC in its 11th meeting with 100% votes in favour. 6. This Adjudicating Authority vide its order dated 14.07.2025 had directed the Resolution Professional to file an appropriate affidavit indicating as to whether any amount due to the EPFO is reflected in the books of account of the Corporate Debtor or not. Therefore, in compliance of order dated 14.07.2025, the Resolution Professional has filed an affidavit dated 18.07.2025 with regards to EPFO dues clarifying that no amount whatsoever is recorded, reflected or shown as due, payable, or outstanding towards the EPFO.

I.A/28/ND/2025 IN CP IB- 686/ND/2022 Order Delivered on: 09.10.2025

7. Upon perusal of the Resolution plan, it is observed that the Resolution Plan provides for the following: i. Payment of CIRP Cost as specified u/s 30(2)(a) of the Code. ii. Repayment of debts of Operational Creditors as specified u/s 30(2)(b) of the Code. iii. For management of the affairs of the Corporate Debtor, after the approval of Resolution Plan, as specified u/s 30(2)(c) of the Code. iv. The implementation and supervision of the Resolution Plan by the Resolution professional and the CoC as specified u/s 30(2)(d) of the Code. 8. The Applicant/Resolution Professional has filed Compliance Certificate in Form- H as Annexure- 23 in the plan approval application. 9. The CoC has duly approved the Resolution plan in its 11th CoC Meeting with 100% votes in favour. 10. We note that the Resolution Professional has affirmed that the Resolution Plan is in compliant with the Regulations 38(1), 38(1)(a), 38(1A), 38(1B), 38(2)(a), 38(2)(b), 38(2)(c), 38(2)(d), 38(3)(a), 38(3)(b), 38(3)(c), 38(3)(d) & 38(3)(e) of the CIRP Regulations. 11. The applicant has prayed for number of waivers, reliefs and concessions in the Resolution Plan as mentioned in Chapter-IV, Page 66 of the Resolution Plan. As to the relief and concessions sought in the resolution plan, by taking into consideration 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, we direct the Successful Resolution Applicant to file necessary application before the necessary forum/ authority in order to avail the necessary relief and concessions, in accordance with respective laws. 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 –

I.A/28/ND/2025 IN CP IB- 686/ND/2022 Order Delivered on: 09.10.2025 (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 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. In so far as the approval of the resolution plan is concerned, this Adjudicating Authority is not sitting on an appeal against the decision of the Committee of Creditors and 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 CC 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 I.A/28/ND/2025 IN CP IB- 686/ND/2022 Order Delivered on: 09.10.2025 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 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.” 13. Further, 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 judgment 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

I.A/28/ND/2025 IN CP IB- 686/ND/2022 Order Delivered on: 09.10.2025 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.” 14. 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:

'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-a-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., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 2142.

15. Furthermore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ghanashyam Mishra and Sons Private Limited Vs. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited, (2021) 9 SCC 657 has categorically held as under: “102.1 That once a resolution plan is duly approved by the Adjudicating Authority under sub-section (1) of Section 31, the claims as provided in the Resolution plan shall stand frozen and will be binding on the Corporate Debtor and its employees, members, creditors, including the Central Government, any State Government or any local authority, guarantors and other stakeholders. On the date of approval of resolution plan by the Adjudicating Authority,

I.A/28/ND/2025 IN CP IB- 686/ND/2022 Order Delivered on: 09.10.2025 all such claims, which are not a part of resolution plan, shall stand extinguished and no person will be entitled to initiate or continue any proceedings in respect of a claim, which is not part of the resolution plan. 102.3 Consequently all the dues including the statutory dues owed to the Central Government, any State Government or any local authority, if not part of the resolution plan, shall stand extinguished and no proceedings in respect of such dues for the period prior to the date on which the adjudicating authority grants its approval under Section 31 could be continued.” 16. Thus, from the judgments cited supra, it is amply clear that only limited judicial review is available to the Adjudicating Authority under Section 30(2) read with Section 31 of the Code, 2016 and this Adjudicating Authority cannot venture into the commercial aspects of the decisions taken by the committee of the creditors. 17. It is further observed that the CoC has approved the Resolution Plan with 100% voting. In view of this, we have not gone into the question of commercial aspects of the decision of the CoC.

18. In view of the above discussion, this Adjudicating Authority is satisfied that the Resolution Plan as filed and explained by the SRA meets the requirement of Section 30(2) of IBC. 19. Therefore, in our considered view, there is no impediment to giving approval to the instant Resolution Plan. Accordingly, we hereby approve the Resolution Plan, which shall be binding on the corporate debtor and its employees, shareholders of the corporate debtor, creditors including the Central Government, any State Government or any local authority to whom statutory dues are owed, Successful Resolution Applicant and other stakeholders involved. In view of the above, I.A. 28/ND/2025 stands allowed. 20. It is declared that the moratorium order passed by this Adjudicating Authority under Section 14 of the Code shall cease to have effect from the date of pronouncement of this order. 21. While approving the resolution plan as mentioned above, it is clarified that the 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 I.A/28/ND/2025 IN CP IB- 686/ND/2022 Order Delivered on: 09.10.2025 under any law for the time being in force within the period as provided for in such law.

22. The Resolution Professional shall forward all records relating to the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process of the corporate debtor and the Resolution Plan to IBBI to be recorded in its database in terms of Section 31(3) (b) of the Code. The Resolution Professional is further directed to hand over all the records, premises, and properties of the corporate debtor to the Successful Resolution Applicant to ensure a smooth implementation of the resolution plan. 23. The approved Resolution Plan shall become effective from the date of passing of this order. The Approved Resolution Plan shall be a part of this order, subject to our observations regarding concessions, reliefs and waivers sought therein. 24. As per the amended Regulation 38(4) of the CIRP Regulations as substituted by the IBBI vide its Notification dated 03.02.2025, the monitoring committee shall submit quarterly reports to the Adjudicating Authority regarding the status of implementation of resolution plan. In view of the above, the I.A./28/ND/2025 in CP IB-686/ND/2022 stands approved in terms of the aforesaid discussion and is accordingly disposed off.

Let the copy of the order be served to the parties.

Sd/- Sd/- (ANU JAGMOHAN SINGH) (MAHENDRA KHANDELWAL) MEMBER (TECHNICAL) MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

I.A/28/ND/2025 IN CP IB- 686/ND/2022 Order Delivered on: 09.10.2025

This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.

Research this judgment with Miss Lucy

Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.

Try Miss Lucy free