Approval of Resolution Plan - Three C Facility Management Private Limited

National Company Law Tribunal15 July 2026

CitationIA-30/ND/2026 in IB-1114/ND/2020

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

The Tribunal's approval of the resolution plan rests on the principle that its jurisdiction under Section 31(1) read with Section 30(2) of the IBC is confined to determining whether the requirements of Section 30(2) are satisfied, and that the commercial wisdom of the Committee of Creditors, once exercised, cannot be substituted by the Tribunal's own assessment of the merits of the plan. Where the Resolution Professional's certificate and the plan show that the requirements of Section 30(2) have been met, the Tribunal must approve the plan; it is not open to the Tribunal to refuse approval on the ground that a resolution applicant's reliefs or concessions remain unresolved, since such reliefs cannot be granted as a condition of approval and the plan is to be implemented as submitted. Where the valuation of the corporate debtor's assets is assessed as nil, the resolution applicant acquires no right to any asset not valued in the plan, and creditors remain entitled to assert claims over such assets; the clean slate principle applies only to assets for which value has been assigned and on which the plan is founded.

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

Judgment

As delivered

IN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNALNEW DELHI SPECIAL BENCH (COURT – II)Item No. 204IB-1114/ND/2020IA-30/ND/2026IN THE MATTER OF:BVG India Ltd.8th Floor, World Trade TowerSector-16, NOIDA -201301 … ApplicantVersusThree C Facility ManagementC-23, Greater Kailash Enclave, Part-INew Delhi- 110048 … RespondentAND IN THE MATTER OF IA-30/ND/2026:Devendra Umrao94-D, POCKET-F,Mayur Vihar Phase – 2, New Delhi … ApplicantVersusShaneshwara Properties Pvt. Ltd & ors.305, Nirmal Tower, Barakhamba Road,New Delhi – 110001 …RespondentsUnder Section: 9 of the IBC, 2016Order delivered on 15.07.2026CORAM:SH. ASHOK KUMAR BHARDWAJ, HON’BLE MEMBER (J)SH. BANWARI LAL MEENA, HON’BLE MEMBER (T)PRESENT:For the Applicant : Adv. Jaya GargFor the Respondent :For RP : Adv. Abhishek Anand, Adv. Karan Kohli, Adv.Vanshika DhootHearing Through: VC and Physical (Hybrid) ModeIA-30/ND/2026 in IB-1114/ND/2020BVG India Ltd. vs. Three C Facility Management

ORAL ORDER IA-30/ND/2026: We heard Mr. Abhishek Anand, Ld. Counsel for the Resolution Professional. He could explain that the requirement of Section 30(2) of the IBC, 2016, has been satisfied. 1. The conspectus of the case has been captured in paras 4 to 50 of the application, which reads thus:-

IA-30/ND/2026 in IB-1114/ND/2020

2. The application also contains the brief contours qua the approval of the Resolution Plan, the same are described in paras 51 to 68 of the application, which read thus:-

IA-30/ND/2026 in IB-1114/ND/2020

3. Mr. Abhishek Anand, Ld. Counsel for the applicant could take us through the Resolution Plan. We see from the Resolution Plan that the provisions contained therein regarding the payment of CIRP costs. The relevant excerpt of the Resolution Plan reads thus:-

4. Mr. Abhishek Anand, Ld. Counsel for the applicant (RP) submitted that there is no Dissenting Creditor qua the resolution process. Our attention is drawn to Clause-D of the Resolution Plan, which contains provisions regarding the treatment of the claims of various stakeholders as well as the CIRP Costs. The particular clause of the Resolution Plan reads thus:-

IA-30/ND/2026 in IB-1114/ND/2020

5. The Resolution Plan also provides for the constitution of a Monitoring Committee to ensure compliance with the provisions of Section 30(2) (c) read with Section 30(2) (d) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The relevant excerpt of the plan reads thus:-

IA-30/ND/2026 in IB-1114/ND/2020

6. We could also see from the plan that it contains the provisions regarding the term of the Resolution Plan and implementation schedule in terms of Regulation 38(2)(a) of the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016, as well as the implementation provisions. The relevant excerpt thereof reads thus:-

IA-30/ND/2026 in IB-1114/ND/2020

7. The plan also contains a clause in the Resolution plan that indicates provisions regarding funding and sources of funds to be available for the implementation of the Resolution plan. The provisions in this regard read thus:-

8. Although the SRA has sought relief and concession, it has also asserted via Clause I of the plan that it will be implemented irrespective of whether any relief and concession are granted. The relevant excerpt of the Resolution Plan in this regard reads thus:-

IA-30/ND/2026 in IB-1114/ND/2020

9. The RP has enclosed with the plan application an affidavit given by the SRA in terms of the provisions of Section 29A of the IBC, 2016. The relevant excerpt of the affidavit reads thus:-

IA-30/ND/2026 in IB-1114/ND/2020

10. The RP has enclosed with the plan a copy of Bank-Communication (e-mail) to state that the position of the SRA with respect to Performance Guarantee. The details regarding the performance guarantee as given with the plan application read thus:-

11. The Successful Resolution Applicants (SRAs), in the Resolution Plan, have also addressed the cause of default, the viability and feasibility of the Resolution Plan, its effective implementation, and other requirements stipulated under Regulation 38(3) of the CIRP Regulations. It would be in the fitness of things to extract the relevant excerpt from the plan, which reads thus:-

IA-30/ND/2026 in IB-1114/ND/2020

12. As can be seen from the annexure to the certificate given by the RP in the form of Form-H, the plan aligns with the provisions of Section 25(2)(h), 29A, 30, 31 and Regulations 38 & 39 of the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016. The relevant excerpt of the annexure reads thus:-

IA-30/ND/2026 in IB-1114/ND/2020

13. We could also see that the value offered under the Resolution Plan is higher than the fair value of the Corporate Debtor. The relevant excerpt of the Form H, wherein fair value, liquidation value and the realisable amount has been mentioned, reads thus:-

IA-30/ND/2026 in IB-1114/ND/2020

14. The certificate furnished by the Resolution Professional also contains details regarding the distribution/realisation of amounts under the Resolution Plan among the various stakeholders. The relevant clause of the certificate in this regard reads thus:-

IA-30/ND/2026 in IB-1114/ND/2020

15. 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 in such issues is negligible. The above view was also reiterated by the 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 the Resolution Plan by this Tribunal is confined to the provisions of Section 30(2) of the 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 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 IA-30/ND/2026 in IB-1114/ND/2020 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.” 16. In the recent judgment of Torrent Power Ltd. v. Ashish Arjunkumar Rathi and Ors., (2026) ibclaw.in 109 SC, Hon’ble SC has categorically mentioned that commercial wisdom of COC is paramount. The relevant excerpt of the judgement reads thus:- “12. Having concluded that neither of the issues raised by the appellants establishes any modification of the Resolution Plan or any material irregularity in the conduct of the RP, the challenge stands stripped of its factual foundation. What remains is, in substance, a challenge to the commercial decision taken by the CoC. The IBC leaves no scope for judicial intervention even here.

12.1 It has been the consistent view of this Court that the commercial wisdom of the CoC cannot be interfered with by the NCLT, the NCLAT or this Court as was held in K. Sashidhar vs. Indian Overseas Bank, [(2019) ibclaw.in 08 SC] : (2019) 12 SCC 150 as under: “55. Whereas, the discretion of the adjudicating authority (NCLT) is circumscribed by Section 31 limited to scrutiny of the resolution plan “as approved” by the requisite percent of voting share of financial creditors. Even in that enquiry, the grounds on which the adjudicating authority can reject the resolution plan is in reference to matters specified in Section 30(2), when the resolution plan does not conform to the stated requirements. Reverting to Section 30(2),

IA-30/ND/2026 in IB-1114/ND/2020 the enquiry to be done is in respect of whether the resolution plan provides : (i) the payment of insolvency resolution process costs in a specified mannerin priority to the repayment of other debts of the corporate debtor, (ii) the repayment of the debts of operational creditors in prescribed manner, (iii) the management of the affairs of the corporate debtor, (iv) the implementation and supervision of the resolution plan, (v) does not contravene any of the provisions of the law for the time being in force, (vi) conforms to such other requirements as may be specified by the Board. The Board referred to is established under Section 188 of the I&B Code. The powers and functions of the Board have been delineated in Section 196 of the I&B Code. None of the specified functions of the Board, directly or indirectly, pertain to regulating the manner in which the financial creditors ought to or ought not to exercise their commercial wisdom during the voting on the resolution plan under Section 30(4) of the I&B Code. The subjective satisfaction of the financial creditors at the time of voting is bound to be a mixed baggage of variety of factors. To wit, the feasibility and viability of the proposed resolution plan and including their perceptions about the general capability of the resolution applicant to translate the projected plan into a reality. The resolution applicant may have given projections backed by normative data but still in the opinion of the dissenting financial creditors, it would not be free from being speculative. These aspects are completely within the domain of the financial creditors who are called upon to vote on the resolution plan under Section 30(4) of the I&B Code. xxx

58. Indubitably, the inquiry in such an appeal would be limited to the power exercisable by the resolution professional under Section 30(2) of the I&B Code or, at best, by the adjudicating authority (NCLT) under Section 31(2) read with Section 31(1) of the I&B Code. No other inquiry would be permissible. Further, the jurisdiction bestowed upon the appellate authority (NCLAT) is also expressly circumscribed. It can examine the challenge only in relation to the grounds specified in Section 61(3) of the I&B Code, which is limited to matters “other than” enquiry into the autonomy or commercial wisdom of the dissenting financial creditors. Thus, the prescribed authorities (NCLT/NCLAT) have been endowed with limited

IA-30/ND/2026 in IB-1114/ND/2020 jurisdiction as specified in the I&B Code and not to act as a court of equity or exercise plenary powers.” (Underlining by us)

12.2 Similarly, in Kalyani Transco, decided on 26.09.2025, a three- Judge Bench of this Court held as follows:

“179. It can thus be seen that this Court has held that the legislature purposefully did not include a means to challenge the commercial wisdom exercised by the CoC. This makes a challenge to the same non – justiciable. It has been further held that a challenge cannot be raised against the decision making of the CoC unless and until the grounds for challenge as given in the Code are satisfied. Any interference in the paramount objective of the CoC of exercising its commercial wisdom would amount to the Court rewriting the law and going against the very objectives of the IBC. 180. We are therefore of the opinion that in the present matter as well, the CoC exercised its commercial wisdom while approving the Resolution Plan whereby the Appellant – Jaldhi was classified as a contingent creditor and such a decision is deemed to be non – justiciable by this Court in view of K. Sashidhar (supra) which has been subsequently followed in a catena of judgments. The NCLT, and the NCLAT have also approved the Resolution Plan, and in light of the settled principle of law, we find no question of law being raised by the Appellant – Jaldhi and therefore, the appeal filed by it is liable to be dismissed.” (underlining by us) 12.3 We note the observations in Essar Steel India Limited, clarifying that once the NCLT is satisfied that the CoC has applied its mind to the statutory requirements spelt out in sub-section (2) of Section 30 it must necessarily pass the resolution plan, as under:

“73. …Thus, while the Adjudicating Authority cannot interfere on merits with the commercial decision taken by the Committee of Creditors, the limited judicial review available is to see that the IA-30/ND/2026 in IB-1114/ND/2020

Committee of Creditors has taken into account the fact that the corporate debtor needs to keep going as a going concern during the insolvency resolution process; that it needs to maximise the value of its assets; and that the interests of all stakeholders including operational creditors has been taken care of. If the Adjudicating Authority finds, on a given set of facts, that the aforesaid parameters have not been kept in view, it may send a resolution plan back to the Committee of Creditors to resubmit such a plan after satisfying the aforesaid parameters. The reasons given by the Committee of Creditors while approving a resolution plan may thus be looked at by the Adjudicating Authority only from this point of view, and once it is satisfied that the Committee of Creditors has paid attention to these key features, it must then pass the resolution plan, other things being equal.” (Underlining by us) 12.4 We also note the observations in Pratap Technocrats Private Ltd. vs. Monitoring Committee of Reliance Infratel Limited, [(2021) ibclaw.in 148 SC] : (2021) 10 SCC 623 wherein this Court categorically held as follows: “29. The jurisdiction which has been conferred upon the adjudicating authority regarding the approval of a resolution plan is statutorily structured by sub-section (1) of Section 31. The jurisdiction is limited to determining whether the requirements which are specified in sub-section (2) of Section 30 have been fulfilled. This is a jurisdiction which is statutorily defined, recognised and conferred, and hence cannot be equated with a jurisdiction in equity that operates independently of the provisions of the statute. The adjudicating authority, as a body owing its existence to the statute, must abide by the nature and extent of its jurisdiction as defined in the statute itself. 44. …the jurisdiction of the adjudicating authority and the appellate authority cannot extend to entering upon the merits of a business decision made by a requisite majority of the CoC in its commercial wisdom. Nor is there a residual equity-based jurisdiction in the adjudicating authority or the appellate authority to interfere in this decision, so long as it is otherwise in conformity with the provisions of IBC and the Regulations under the enactment.”

IA-30/ND/2026 in IB-1114/ND/2020 (Underlining by us)

12.5 The issue is no longer res integra, the law having been settled that the commercial wisdom of the CoC enjoys primacy and cannot be supplanted by judicial review. Neither the NCLT, nor the NCLAT, nor even this Court is empowered to substitute its assessment in place of the commercial decision arrived at by a requisite majority of the CoC.

13. The appeals before us typify the growing strategic use of the judicial system by unsuccessful resolution applicants, who seek to reopen almost every commercial decision under the guise of procedural impropriety. This converts the corporate resolution process into a protracted adversarial contest and erodes the value of the Corporate Debtor. Such an approach incentivises delay, rent-seeking, and strategic obstruction and is fundamentally inconsistent with the economic logic and statutory design of the IBC.

13.1 In the present case, the Resolution Plan stands approved by both the NCLT and the NCLAT and has since been implemented, leaving absolutely no scope for intervention by this Court.”

17. 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 the IBC, 2016 mandate the Resolution Applicant to obtain the necessary approval

IA-30/ND/2026 in IB-1114/ND/2020 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, 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 the provisions of sub-sections (2) and (3), on the insolvency commencement date, the Adjudicating Authority shall by order declare a moratorium prohibiting all of the following, namely: - (a) …..

(b) …..

(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.

IA-30/ND/2026 in IB-1114/ND/2020

Explanation.- For 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)

18. 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 the IRP in terms of the provisions of Section 18(1)(b) of the IBC, 2016 and by the 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 the IBBI (Insolvency

IA-30/ND/2026 in IB-1114/ND/2020

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 the 95th day from the Insolvency commencement date. As has been provided in Regulation 36A of the Regulations, the RP shall 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 the 60th day from the Insolvency commencement date, for interested and eligible Prospective Resolution Applicants to submit Resolution Plans. As can be seen from Regulation 36B of the Regulations, the RP shall issue the Information Memorandum Evaluation Matrix (IMEM) and request for Resolution Plans within 5 days of the date of issue of the 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 a request for a Resolution Plan. The request for the 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 IA-30/ND/2026 in IB-1114/ND/2020 requirements of Regulations 37 and 38 of the extant Regulations. Once the plan is approved by the CoC, in terms of the provisions of Regulation 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 the IBC, 2016, takes care of most of the relief/concession/waiver solicited by the Resolution Applicant. 19. 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

IA-30/ND/2026 in IB-1114/ND/2020 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. 20. 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.

IA-30/ND/2026 in IB-1114/ND/2020

21. 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 not be oblivious of the fact that in the backdrop of the 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 Sections 31(1) and 32A of the IBC, 2016. 22. A perusal of the Resolution Plan reveals that a reference to ‘Information Memorandum’ has been made therein. There is specific mention in the Resolution Plan that the ownership status of the properties in which the Corporate Debtor made investment remains unclear. The Plan makes a mention about investment in Delhi One Project, Noida- A Tripartite Agreement executed among Boulevard Projects Private Limited, Three Facility Management Private Limited and ICICI Bank (Lender). It has been clearly mention in the Plan that the money invested in three private Residence referred to therein viz. No. 3202 (Tower FS-1, 25th Level); 2301 (Tower FS-3, 15th Level); 3201 (Tower FS-1, 25th Level) was financed through a loan facility of Rs. 15 Crores from ICICI Bank, which was secured by way of mortgage over the aforementioned residential units. A stand is taken in the Plan that the aforementioned particulars disclosed in the Plan were mere information available with RP and besides such information, no other

IA-30/ND/2026 in IB-1114/ND/2020 information was available. In clause 4 of the Plan, a reference has been made to financial statement of the CD for the financial years ending on 31.03.2018, 31.03.2017 and 31.03.2016. In the statement, there is no mention about any of the aforementioned units. The statement as reproduced in the Plan reads thus:- 4. Financial Statements

The Financial statement of the Corporate Debtor is as follow;. However, upon inspecting the MCA portal for TCFMPL, it was observed that the balance sheet for the period ending 31 Mar 2018 has not been uploaded on the MCA portal. Amount (In Rs)

IA-30/ND/2026 in IB-1114/ND/2020

23. The Resolution Plan also does not make any reference to ICICI Bank as secured creditor, thus apparently, the RP did not assert any claim of CD on the units referred to hereinabove in para 22. However, the Plan make a reference to charge of Rs. 15 Crores on the CD. 24. It is seen from the Valuation Report enclosed as Annexure A-36 to the application from the report given by the valuator Mr. Shravan Kumar Vishnoi, both the fair value and liquidation value of the assets of the CD are nil. There is no mention of any immovable/fixed assets in the inventory of the assets of the CD noted by the said valuer. The relevant excerpt of the report reads thus:-

25. We also note from the Valuation Report given to RP by Mr. Gyaneshwar Sahai that no fixed assets far-less either of the aforementioned units were included in the assets of the CD. Clause 24 of the Valuation Report given by Mr. Gyaneshwar reads thus:-

IA-30/ND/2026 in IB-1114/ND/2020

26. Apparently, the valuation of assets of the CD as assessed by two valuators is nil. The Resolution Plan could be submitted by the SRA with reference to the Valuation Report and the information given in the Information Memorandum. As neither any of the secured or unsecured creditors of the CD were included in CoC nor the Plan has been approved by them, we clarify that the claim over the aforementioned assets would be of the creditors viz. secured or unsecured and the SRA will facilitate them to assert their claim over the same, as the SRA has submitted its claim only with reference to nil value of the assets. Indubitably, clean sheet principle will apply only with reference to such assets for which value is assigned and such value is formed as basis for the Resolution Plan. 27. We also see from the certificate given by the RP in Form H, the fair value and liquidation value is zero. So, thus, the SRA who could offer this Plan with reference to zero fair and liquidation value of the CD cannot claim any right on any of its assets on discovered and found in future. Clause 7A of the certificate reads thus:-

IA-30/ND/2026 in IB-1114/ND/2020

28. Although, the Resolution Plan does not indicate the particulars of certain parties to whom the secured/unsecured debt may be payable by it. However, no efforts were made to include them in the list of creditors and CoC could comprise only operational creditors. In the given situation, we could have rejected the Resolution Plan and ordered liquidation of CD. However, the Resolution Plan and certificate given by the RP in Form H are designed in such a way that an impression would be gathered that the liquidation process would be futile exercise and there are no funds given to meet the liquidation cost. In such situation, it is incumbent upon this Tribunal to pass an appropriate order. One option could be to reverse the CIRP. However, as even original promoters are also not there, again the recall of order of admission would require us to appoint some administrator or directors qua the CD. In the given situation, it would be apt to approve the Plan and to pass appropriate directions. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in IA-30/ND/2026 in IB-1114/ND/2020

Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. v. Amit Gupta (2021) 7 SCC 209, held that the jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Authority under Section 60(5)(c) of the IBC is broad and residuary. It can adjudicate questions having a nexus with the insolvency resolution process and issue appropriate directions to ensure the objectives of the Code are achieved. Relevant excerpt reads thus:- "87. The residuary jurisdiction of the NCLT under Section 60(5)(c) of the IBC provides it a wide discretion to adjudicate questions of law or fact arising from or in relation to the insolvency resolution proceedings. If the jurisdiction of the NCLT were to be confined to actions prohibited by Section 14 of the IBC, there would have been no requirement for the legislature to enact Section 60(5)(c) of the IBC. Section 60(5)(c) would be rendered otiose if Section 14 is held to be the exhaustive of the grounds of judicial intervention contemplated under the IBC in matters of preserving the value of the corporate debtor and its status as a 'going concern. We hasten to add that our finding on the validity of the exercise of residuary power by the NCLT is premised on the facts of this case. We are not laying down a general principle on the contours of the exercise of residuary power by the NCLT. However, it is pertinent to mention that the NCLT cannot exercise its jurisdiction over matters dehors the insolvency proceedings since such matters would fall outside the realm of IBC."

29. Here, it would not be out of context to make reference to judgment of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in Three C Green Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. and Ors. (Writ – C No. – 31823 of 2019), wherein, Hon’ble Allahabad High Court could view that the CBI need to investigate the affairs of Three C

IA-30/ND/2026 in IB-1114/ND/2020

Group Companies. In the present case, it is noted that the CD has been referred to as Serial No. 10 of the table given in para 64 of the order passed by Hon’ble Allahabad High Court. Paras 64 and 69 to 152 of the judgment of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court reads thus:-

IA-30/ND/2026 in IB-1114/ND/2020

XXX 69. We would be remiss in our duty if we ignore the illegalities committed by the Builders (sub-lessees) in connivance with the officials of Noida Authority which has snow-balled into a major land scam and which, according to CAG, has led to significant loss to the Noida Authority and the State Government and to the public at large. We are constrained to note the total lack of concern shown by the Authority on the report of the CAG and we

IA-30/ND/2026 in IB-1114/ND/2020 wonder why no action has been taken against the Builders/ allottees /sub-lessees and the officers of the Noida Authority who were involved in this large-scale scam. 70. The timeline of events, the total inaction of the NOIDA Authority and the apathy of the State Government, in the face of the CAG report compels us to pass suitable orders in the matter. A Court, much less a Constitutional Court, cannot sit helpless in the face of blatant illegalities and apparent collusion. This Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution, has the power to pass appropriate orders in the face of inexplicable illegality and loss of public money. This Court can, and does in these glaring facts, take cognizance of what seems like a glaring case of collusion between builders and officers of NOIDA Authority to grant undue benefit to them and cause loss to State exchequer and consciously turn a blind eye to a report of the CAG. In so doing, they have also created a difficult situation for the homebuyers, which is compounding the problem even further. 71. The following analysis, conclusions and our subsequent directions are aimed to address the malfeasance and provide relief to the affected stakeholders:

H. SCHEME-2010-2011 FOR DEVELOPMENT OF SPORT CITY IN NOIDA AND ITS VIOLATION:- 72. Noida having been declared to be an Industrial Township is obligated to not only develop industries but also to develop a complete township by virtue of Article 2430 of the Constitution of India. The sports city scheme having been widely publicized on 03.03.2011 was to fulfil a laudable object. This is evident that the object of the scheme was to develop state-of-the-art sports facilities to be enjoyed by the public at large. This scheme was launched for developing Sports City at two different places in IA-30/ND/2026 in IB-1114/ND/2020

Noida, first of which is in Sector-78 & 79, admeasuring about 7,27,500 square metre and the other sports city in sector 150 in Noida. This case pertains to the former Sports City in Sector 78 & 79. 73. The reasons of allotting a huge parcel of land was for developing an international standard Sports facility. Looking at the size and the cost of the project it may not have been feasible for an individual company to complete the project. So a Consortium of companies were allowed to participate and develop the sports city project. It was never the intention of the Scheme to bifurcate the project of Sports City into a smaller plots and allow small builders to make group housing society in the sports city. But looking at the way the Authority allowed the haphazard development of the group housing, the entire concept and the scheme of sports city has been frustrated. 74. As per the scheme, a Brochure was issued which had several conditions, which conditions were breached by the allotees / sub-lessee in material respects disentitling them from being allotted the project, but which were brushed under the carpet in connivance with the officers of the Noida Authority. 75. Some of the conditions and their glaring breaches are as follows: "Members of consortium will have to specify one Lead Member who alone shall be authorized to correspond with the NOIDA. Lead member should be the single largest shareholder having at least 30% share in the consortium." (emphasis supplied)

On the request of the allottees, individual sub leases were executed by the Noida authority first in favor of the individual members of the consortium, and separate payment schedule was IA-30/ND/2026 in IB-1114/ND/2020 fixed. Subsequently these members started corresponding with the Noida authority and sending request contrary to the scheme and that same were accepted erroneously. The lead member was supposed to be the single largest shareholder having at least 30% share in the consortium. However in this case the lead member was completely ousted by the allottees and the officials of the Noida authority (together hereinafter referred as conniving parties) while executing the lease deeds with the members of the consortium. 76. The shareholding of the lead member in the consortium shall remain at least 30% till the temporary occupancy/completion certificate. of at least one phase of the project is obtained from the Noida. (emphasis supplied)

This condition was also brazenly violated. The lead member was completely ousted by the allottees in connivance with the conniving parties, even much prior of getting a temporary occupancy competition certificate of first phase of the project. 77. In case of Consortium, the members shall submit a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) conveying their intent to jointly apply for the scheme(s), and in case the plot is allotted to them, the MOA shall clearly define the role and responsibility of each member in the consortium, particularly with regard to arranging debt and equity for the project and its implementation. (emphasis supplied) No such MOA was executed which defined role and responsibility of each of the members, neither the same was ever asked by the Noida Authority..

IA-30/ND/2026 in IB-1114/ND/2020

78. The members shall submit a registered/notarized Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) conveying their intent to jointly apply for the scheme, and in case the plot is allotted to them, to form Special Purpose Company(ies), hereinafter called SPCs that will subsequently carry out all its responsibilities as the allottee. (emphasis supplied) Though the SPC was there but was never taken any such responsibility, the officials of the Noida Authority never even asked for the same. On the contrary the entire project was divided in a number of plots and allotted to different companies. Each of these companies took on themselves with specific roles of developing the project, the division was such all the cream of the project were assigned to smaller companies. In all 21 companies got the advantage of developing the residential commercial project, and the entire responsibility of completing the sports facilities was assigned to petitioner no. 1 and one another company. These smaller companies were later on sold to other builders (who were not even qualified to apply), by transferring the shares of the sub-lessee companies.

All the profits were siphoned off, and nothing was ploughed or held back for the development of the sports facilities. This also created a channel for back-door allotment to ineligible persons. 79. The allottee and in the case of consortium, the lead member and/or the relevant member and/or SPC(s) incorporated by them, put together, will have to construct on their own a minimum of 30% of the total permissible FAR on allotted area. (emphasis supplied) In this case neither the lead member nor the relevant member constructed on their own the 30% of the total permissible FAR on IA-30/ND/2026 in IB-1114/ND/2020 allotted area. The lead member was ousted right in the beginning: 80. The "Lead Member" (on the date of submission of the tender) shall continue to hold at least 30% of the shareholding in the SPC till the temporary occupancy/completion certificate at least one phase of the project is obtained from the NOIDA (emphasis supplied) In this case the lead member was not holding 30% of the share in the SPC and till date they have not completed the first phase of the project. But the officials of the Noida authority kept their eyes closed and allowed the allottees to continue the way they wanted.

81. In case of default in depositing the instalments or any payment, interest @ 14% compounded half yearly shall be leviable for defaulted period on the defaulted amount. (emphasis supplied) The allottees kept on defaulting in payment of the dues of the Noida authority but no efforts were ever made to recover the principal with the contractual interest from the allotee. In more than a decade only 3 or 4 stray notices have been sent. Even those were nothing but just an eyewash. The officials of the Noida authority have miserably failed to recover the dues. This was nothing but an outcome of the conniving parties, which led to a huge loss to the state exchequer. 82. The Lessee shall be required to complete the construction of minimum 15% of the permissible area earmarked for sports, institutional and other facilities within a period of 3 years from the date of execution of Lease Deed and shall complete the project in phases

IA-30/ND/2026 in IB-1114/ND/2020 within 5 years. However, the residential and commercial development/construction may be completed in phases within 7 years. (emphasis supplied) Though the Lessee were obligated to complete the construction of minimum 15% of the permissible area earmarked for sports, etc within a period of 3 years from the date of execution of Lease Deed, no part of this has been done till date. Further, a perusal of the provision also shows that the residential portion was to be developed as a quid pro quo for development of the sports facilities. However, by alienating the allotted land to third parties, money has been siphoned off by the allottees while no such development of the sports facilities has ever been carried out. Noida Authority never asked to complete the sports facilities part of the project either. 83. The Completion Certificate will be issued by the NOIDA on the completion of the project or part thereof in phases and on the submission of the necessary documents required for certifying the completion of the project or part thereof. (emphasis supplied) This condition was also diluted by the conniving officials. 84. Without obtaining the completion certificate the lessee shall have the right to sub-divide the allotted plot into suitable smaller plot as per the planning norms of the NOIDA only for the area available for residential and commercial use and to transfer the same to the interested parties, if any, with the prior approval of the NOIDA on payment of transfer charges at the rate prevailing on the date of transfer.

IA-30/ND/2026 in IB-1114/ND/2020 (emphasis supplied) Here the lessee had the right to sub-divide the allotted plot into suitable smaller plot only for the area available for residential and commercial use, and that too after getting the completion certificate, But here the entire project of sports city was subdivided, and further it was illegally transferred to third parties, without the prior approval of the NOIDA, neither the transfer charges were paid. 85. The NOIDA will monitor the implementation of the project. (emphasis supplied) The NOIDA Authority has miserably failed to monitor the implementation of the project. 86. In the scheme the allotment price was kept far below the the market price of that point of time, as the scheme was for development of the sports facility and for this purpose, the price was purposely kept low so the cost of developing the sports facilities could he set off by developing the residential apartments/commercial area. However, the allottees took the undue benefit of the low price, and after the allotment, without paying the further instalments (which was 90% of the allotment cost) sold it off to smaller builders, by making a huge profit at the cost of Noida authority and the public at large.

It was clear from the policy and brochure, that the lead member should be the single largest shareholder having at least 30% share in the Consortium and he was supposed to hold back his 30% shares till they get temporary occupancy or completion certificate of at least the first phase of the project. However, soon after the allotment of project to the Consortium, the Noida authority in IA-30/ND/2026 in IB-1114/ND/2020 complete violation of the policy and the scheme, went on dividing/ sub dividing the plots. 87. The intent of the consortium members was evident from the inception, as the subdivision of plots was clearly part of a calculated scheme. Their aim was to distribute all the advantages and assets of the Sports City among various smaller entities while concentrating the liabilities specifically, the obligation to develop sports facilities into two companies, of which one was the petitioner. The petitioner company claims to have taken a financial assistance by issuing debenture. Since the petitioner had not developed any thing one wonders where has the money been spent. The petitioner company, was pushed into insolvency as part of a broader strategy with the sole intention of defrauding the Noida authority and the State.

The persons behind the said companies utilized the land earmarked for recovery of cost to build the sports facilities to third parties in connivance with Noida Authority officials, effectively putting these funds which were earmarked for public use outside the scope of recovery. These lands were meant for generation of revenue to complete the sports facilities, which was required to be put into the intended use. 88. No doubt, the sub division of the plot was allowed but it had certain riders and condition attached to it, which were never followed in its true sense and spirit. In this case, the officers of the NOIDA Authority purposely chose to be blind to the attached condition and merely went on hifurcating the entire sports city, with the sole intention of extending undue advantage to the allottees/ Builders. 89. Sanction of the map, even if it exists, has to be read along with the scheme and the lease deed as well as the statutory provisions. Any sanction contrary to the provisions of the Act,

IA-30/ND/2026 in IB-1114/ND/2020 brochure, allotment and lease deed will by itself he a deviation and this deviation being not recognized under the law, hence, the Grundnorm Principle would be applicable. 90. Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim right unfairly, particularly when, the layout plan was not prepared by the Noida Authority, but was prepared by the petitioner himself and deliberately taken the responsibility of developing the sports facility, though the petitioner had no intention of doing the same. 91. From the material on record, it transpires that the promoter of the petitioner company are the same as that of 7 out of 9 consortium members companies, the internal division of the responsibilities, were made in a way that all the cream of the project was parked in smaller entities, and all the liabilities of completing the project into two companies. The intention of the petitioner right from the beginning was not to develop the sports city but just to sell of the smaller creamy portion of the project, and to make money. 92. Since in this case there has been a weh of companies incorporated by the same promoters and all of his newly incorporated companies applied as a consortium, and there after the share holdings have changed in certain companies without the permission of the authority, contrary to the provisions of the sports city scheme.

Hence it is necessary to pierce the corporate veil and see who are the people/entity responsible for the fraud/scam. 1. INSOLVENCY-LIFTING OF CORPORATE VEIL 93. In this case the project was allotted to a consortium, surprisingly all the members of the consortium companies were incorporated after the scheme was launched and the promoters of all the companies were same, which goes to show the IA-30/ND/2026 in IB-1114/ND/2020 consortium was not a genuine consortium but was made of a group of companies owned by same set of people, who after getting the allotment, got it sub-divided and a development plan was applied and approved in such a way, that all the assets of the Sports City were kept in by various small companies and the liability of developing the sports facility was kept with two companies. 94. Few of the companies in this consortium have gone into insolvency. The insolvencies of these companies were designed only to avoid payment to Noida Authority, banks/ financial institutions, State of U.P. to find out the actual accused person who was involved in this bungling/fraud, which resulted into the insolvency, it is necessary to lift the corporate veil of the web of these companies.

And to see whether they are trying to hide their fraudulent activities and themselves under the mask of the company being a separate juristic personality. 95. Out of all the companies, who are involved in the development of the Sports City following four companies have gone into insolvency, which are Mis Sequel Buidcon Pvt. Ltd., M/s Arena Super Structure Pvt. Ltd., M/s Kindle Developers Pvt. Ltd. Mis Three C Green Developers Pvt. Ltd. (petitioner herein). The first three companies named above were assigned the task of developing residential part of sports city. They were the original members of the consortium or their 100% subsidiary companies of the allottees and had only one business of developing the sports city. Surprisingly in all these companies the original promoters were the same (i.e. Niramal Singh, Surpreet Singh Suri and Vidur Bharadwaj). They have collected huge amount of money by selling part of the project to various other entities (by share transfer of various small holding companies). Obviously, this would have been sold at a price. The money

IA-30/ND/2026 in IB-1114/ND/2020 would have come in the vendor company or any other of its concern or in personal accounts of the promoters (ie Nirmal Singh, Vidur Bhardwaj and Surpreet Singh Suri). Now the question is where did the sale consideration go. This money was for the land which was to be used for generating the revenue to construct the sports facilities. No such facility has been made. The entire sale proceeds were syphoned off and thereafter allowed the petitioner company to slip into insolvency. Definitely, this insolvency is a tailor-made insolvency just to avoid civil and criminal liabilities and to avoid payment of the dues and completing the obligation of developing the Sports City. This is nothing but just a fraud played on Noida Authority as well as on the State and other stakeholders/creditors. 96. Due to the occurrence of the above instances of fraud and irregularities, the law has taken change with its earlier exception that, a company is a separate juristic personality and the liability of the company cannot be recovered from the property of directors. In due course of time, certain exceptions have been carved out in the doctrine of separate juristic personality of the company. The doctrine of 'piercing of corporate veil was initially crystallized in In Salomon v. Salomon & Co. Ltd. [Salomon v. Salomon and Co. Ltd., the House of Lords had observed, the company is at law, a different person altogether from the subscriber. However, the courts have come to recognise several exceptions to the said rule. While it is not necessary to refer to all of them, the one relevant to us is 'when the corporate personality is being blatantly used as a cloak fur fraud or improper conduct’. 97. This doctrine of lifting corporate veil was carved out in be used whenever and wherever the situation so warranted. Lord Denning in Littlewoods Stores v. I.R.C., held

IA-30/ND/2026 in IB-1114/ND/2020 "The doctrine laid down in Salomon's case has to he watched very curefully. It has been supposed to cust a veil over the personality of a limited company through which the Courts cannot see. But that is not true. The Courts can, and often do, draw aside the veil. They can, and often do, pull off the mask. The way with group accounts and the rest And the Courts should follow suit.” 98. On the doctrine of "piercing of corporate veil' the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of U.P. v. Renusagar Power Co has held that, in the expanding horizon of modern jurisprudence, the lifting of the corporate veil is not only permissible, its frontiers are unlimited and ever expanding. It further significantly observed that the lifting of the corporate veil was a changing concept and of expanding horizons. 99. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan and others vs. Gotan Lime Stone Khanij Udyog Private Limited and another has held as under: "The principle of lifting the corporate veil as an exception to the distinct corporate personality of a company or its members is well recognized not only to unravel tax evasion (7) but also where protection of public interest is of paramount importance and the corporate entity is an attempt to evade legal obligations and lifting af veil is necessary to prevent a device to avoid welfare legislation(8). It is neither necessary nor desirable to enumerate the classes of cases where lifting the veil is permissible, since that must necessarily depend on the relevant statutory or other provisions, the object sought to he achieved, the impugned conduct, the involvement of the element of the public interest, the effect on parties who may be affected etc."

IA-30/ND/2026 in IB-1114/ND/2020

100. The principle of lifting the veil of corporate personality has been upheld in Subhra Mukharjee & another v. Bharat Cooking Coal Ltd. & another; Calcutta Chromotype Ltd. vs. Collector of Central Excise Kolkata", New Horizon Ltd. & another vs. Union of India and others", C.I.T. vs. Meenakshi Mills Ltd. Madura"; Telco & ors vs. State of Bihar Juggi Lal Kamlapat vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, U.P. 101. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Delhi Development Authority v. Skipper Construction Company (P) Ltd. & Another" has been pleased to hold that lifting the corporate veil of the companies, forfeiture and attachment of property acquired by illegal and corrupt means by the builder behind the corporate veil as also properties of the family members can also be ordered by the Court. 102. The modus operandi of the promoters of the petitioner company is consistent. They get the plot allotted from Noida, do not pay the dues of Noida Authority, syphon of the money from the company and then push the company, which is to execute the public facilities part of the project into insolvency to avoid implementing the project and to avoid payment to the creditors and also to avoid civil and criminal liabilities. The High Court, in the matter of Nirmal Singh Vs State of U.P. bearing Writ C no 41110 of 2019, had noticed the same trend by the same set of promoters in the judgment and order dated 29.02.2024. 103. This Court also finds that though it was a mandate given to the Noida Authority and it was their duty to ensure proper implementation of the Sports City, the Noida Authority has failed to oversee the implementation of the Sports City. For the past so many years the construction of group housing was being carried

IA-30/ND/2026 in IB-1114/ND/2020 out and no sports facility was being developed. Still, the Noida Authority kept its eyes closed and allowed the builders to continue with the group housing project without even developing the sports facilities. 104. It is quite surprising to note that if the petitioner and other consortium members had no physical possession of the land, how could they apply for the sanction of map which were approved by the Noida Authority. There are two other things worth noticing. Firstly, the land on which the residential/commercial development is to take place is contiguous to the plot for sports facilities, therefore, to say that approach road is not made available for sports facilities is thus just an attempt to mislead the court. Secondly, the brochure clearly gives a breakdown of different facilities to be constructed in the sports facility, hence, some of these facilities could have been developed by the petitioner to demonstrate its bonafide. But apparently no sports facilities in the Sports City was constructed. 105. The intention of the sports city scheme was not to allot small plots to small builders fly by night operators, then why did Noida Authority divided the plots into smaller holdings and allotted to various companies.

The sub division of the sports city was carried out and Sub leases were granted to companies who were not even eligible to bid for the project. Noida Authority allowed to do thing indirectly what could not have been done directly. 106. Undoubtedly, the petitioners had failed to pay the premium as per the term of the lease deed for paying the instalments. The officials of the Noida Authority never asked for the payment. The record shows that a notice was sent in 2015, another in 2019 and a third one in 2023 asking the petitioners to pay the IA-30/ND/2026 in IB-1114/ND/2020 instalments. These notices were nothing but an eyewash. We are shocked to see the conduct of the Noida Authority that in spite of the repeated failures, no action has been taken by the Noida Authority to recover its dues, neither they took any action for the cancellation of allotment nor any action was taken against the officials, who were involved in this scam. 107. The action of the officials of the Noida Authority is highly questionable. In fact, the entire process of allotting Sports City to the petitioners and in the implementation of the Sports City, there were large scale bungling and a huge benefit was extended to the builders by the conniving officials of the Noida Authority.

Shockingly, no action is taken against the builders and the conniving officials whose deeds have resulted in such a huge scam. J. ZERO PERIOD 108. The most surprising thing is that on 70% of the land area sports facility was to be developed and on the remaining 30% residential/commercial activity was permitted. Every builder is seeking benefit of zero period on the ground of encroachment. The question arises, as to how the encroachment were on an area where he was supposed to develop sports facility and there was no encroachment on the area where residential/commercial structure had to come up. When there was an opportunity to collect money by launching residential/commercial tower there was no encroachment or unavailability of infrastructure by Noida Authority, but when it came to develop sports facility, there was an excuse of encroachments. This theory set up by the builder are not at all believable. If there was no infrastructure available or there was encroachment, then they ought not have sold/booked the flats and if they were doing so without informing

IA-30/ND/2026 in IB-1114/ND/2020 the homebuyers, then that amounts to committing a fraud on the homebuyers. 109. Further the affidavit filed by the Noida Authority shows the date on which each of the allottee were given possession and the same was clear of any encroachment only in few cases there were very small encroachments. Had the builders started construction of sports facility on other areas and had they come to the Court with clean hands, this Court would have certainly treated the cases of the builders sympathetically. But, this is not a case here, the builders are raising this ground just to buy further time. Their conduct right from the day one was to deceive the homebuyers, banks, Noida Authority and not to pay them and not to carry out their obligations and for that they are playing every possible tricks. 110. As per the scheme, three years' time was granted for developing the first phase and five years for the development of the entire sports facility. This delay could not be explained. Even assuming there were some encroachments still major portion of the sports city project land were handed over to the allottees and the allottees, who had bifurcated the land amongst themselves, could have started development of project on the land over which there was no encroachment.

However, they chose not to do so and Noida Authority also did not ask them to do so. K. SCAM 110. This is a case where every action of the Noida Authority smacks of corruption and scam in collusion with the builders since inception of the Sports City Project. The entire process of development of the Sports City including conceiving the scheme, allotment, execution of the lease deed, sanction of map/ plan, and implementation of just one part of the sports city was all an IA-30/ND/2026 in IB-1114/ND/2020 outcome of malafide intentions. The allottees /builder in connivance with the NOIDA official had played a huge fraud and victims are Noida Authority, State of UP. and the Home buyers. 111. The most shocking part is the entire scam and fraud were carried under the aegis of the Noida Authority and, one after another, the officials kept mum and allowed the scam to continue. The allotment was made in the year 2011 and for the first time it was unearthed sometime in the year 2020, when the CAG carried out an audit. Shockingly for the last 9 years, the senior officials of the Noida Authority and the State were well aware of the scam and fraud and they allowed the affairs to continue and no action has been taken against them.

They failed to see that the allottees were doing nothing towards the development of the sports facility, whereby the group company of the petitioner kept on selling to the subsidiary companies. which made huge amount by way of sale of land (by transferring the shareholdings of the subsidiary companies), but did not pay the dues of the Noida authority. 112. Even after the Master Plan was sanctioned on 16.06.2014, neither there was development of any sports facility over the project land nor the officers of Noida Authority even hothered to insist for the same from the allottees/builders. When the entire land was given, then why the allottee did. not complete the sports facility within the stipulated time. Nothing has been done for development of sports facilities and the officers of Noida Authority kept their eyes closed and none of them ever made any serious and sincere effort to get the sports facilities developed. At the same time they chose to be mute spectators and allowed the builders/sub-lessees to start construction of ancillary part of the project (residential). Construction of multi-storey buildings commenced right under their nose and still they did not make

IA-30/ND/2026 in IB-1114/ND/2020 any effort to ensure development of the sports facilities which was the main part of the project. 1.. FRAUD 113. The corporate frauds specially in the insolvency case happens when the management individuals within or associated with the company are engaged in illegal practices and had failed to fulfil their fiduciary duty. which ultimately leads to insolvency and in such a case the stakeholders affected by such fraud including creditors and consumers become the victim of such fraud. Addressing this issue requires multifaceted approach. 114. It is apparent from the scheme that when it was formulated and allotment was made it was pre meditated design, wherein allottee wanted to get the land allotted only by paying 10% then get the benefit of zero period, in the meanwhile collect money from various financial institutions and without even developing the project go into insolvency. The officers of Noida Authority were completely hand in glove to this sinister design. They were part of fraud. They had approved the first consolidated lay out Plan wherein they have individually recognized the role of different companies and knowingly kept the development of all sports facilities in two companies, never followed on the development of the sports facilities in the sports city, never asked the allottees to pay their dues, and allowed the haphazard constructions which were completely contrary to the scheme, brochure conditions, and the conditions of the allotment and lease deed. 115. Fraus Omnia Vitiat- Fraud vitiates everything: The corporate fraud, which includes malpractices, breach of financial duty, financial manipulation, asset diversion siphoning off funds and the government failure, which results into undue advantage

IA-30/ND/2026 in IB-1114/ND/2020 and illegal gains to the people calling the sort in the company would come under the ambit of corporate fraud. 116. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Udgar Gagan Properties Limited v. Sant Singh and others wherein it has been held that the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable as it is only a rule of practice based on sound and proper exercise of discretion and not a jurisdictional bar. The Court can quash an illegal action based on fraud or abuse of process of law. Ref; Madhukar Sadhha Shivarkar (D) by Lrs. v. State of Maharashtra & ors. 117. In the Law Lexicon, Second Edition (Reprint) 2001 by Sri P. Ramanatha Aiyer, it is observed that 'abuse of process of court generally applies to proceeding wanting in bona fides and is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive wherein a person abuses the process of law for his personal advantage". Such kind of proceedings would fall under the amhit of fraud. 118. The fraudulent actions of builders and the connivance of Noida Authority officials resulted in significant financial losses to the State Exchequer and particularly the Noida Authority, along with severe exploitation of homebuyers. The key elements of this fraud are as follows: a) Manipulation of Allotment Process Builders secured large land parcels by paying only 10% of the premium, gaining allotments at undervalued rates. Despite fuiling to pay the remaining installments, builders were allowed to get maps sanctioned and proceed with collecting money from homebuyers. Officials of Noida Authority deliberately ignored these violations and provided undue leniency to builders, allowing them to exploit the scheme without fulfilling their obligations

IA-30/ND/2026 in IB-1114/ND/2020 (b) Failure to Develop Sports Facilities Builders made no effort to initiate the construction of sports facilities, which were the primary objective of the Sports City project Claims of encroachments were used as excuses to delay sports facility construction. Obligation to construct sports facilities was entrusted to dummy companies which were pre-destined to fail. (c) Active Connivance of Noida Authority Officials Officials at all levels of the Noida Authority knowingly allowed these fraudulent practices to continue. They failed to monitor project implementation, recover outstanding dues, or enforce compliance with the terms of the scheme. Their inaction, even after repeated violations, enabled the systematic defrauding of the State Exchequer and homebuyers. Sub-Division and Sale of Plots Builders subdivided the allotted plots and sold them to other business houses or developers at a premium, making substantial profits while avoiding payment of full premiums to Noida Authority This practice not only violated the terms of the allotment but also caused significant losses to the State Exchequer.

M. PIERCING OF ADMINISTRATIVE VEIL 119. It is just not a case of piercing corporate veil containing of purchasers behind the scam but also a case where there should be piercing of administrative veil and see who were the officers/officials involved who had bent all the rules and IA-30/ND/2026 in IB-1114/ND/2020 regulations and allowed these scamsters to scam Noida Authority. Piercing the administrative veil is also important in order to see, who were the officers on top, who were involved in this, and on whose behest everything was carried out. If we just go by the person who has approved the map or took no action to get the instalments paid, then it will be like catching up small fish and allowing big ones who are actually responsible for such a big scam to go scot free. Each and every person, who was involved in decision making, and implementation, or keeping his eyes closed and allowed the scam to happen should be held accountable and suitable action should be taken against them. To utter shock of this Court, there is not even an FIR against such officers/officials. The Government's valuable resource has been lost 120. Even till date, no effort has been made by Noida Authority to recover its outstanding dues or the instalments from the date when it became due and it is a matter of enquiry as to why no action was taken against these companies for payment of dues.

One would wonder what was the reason why for such a long period all the officers posted/connected with the instant matter kept silent and nobody ever asked payment of the installments which fell due. Or pursed the development of the sports city. When this question was asked by Noida Authority, no plausible reasons were given by them. 121. The first scam was done by the NOIDA Authority in allowing bifurcation of the plots into small plots and sold it to other small builders, who independently were not even qualified to make a hid, which caused loss to the State exchequer, as the fresh allotment was made treating it to he a Group Housing Plot, and also no stamp duty was paid for the transfer which caused further loss to the State exchequer. The plot was allotted at a very low price. Sale thereof would definitely have been at a premium.

IA-30/ND/2026 in IB-1114/ND/2020

122. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Secretary, Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur v. Daulat Mal Jain and others has held that when a Government in office misuses its powers figuratively, we refer to the individual Minister/Council of Ministers who are constituents of the Government. The Government acts through its bureaucrats, who shapes its social, economic and administrative policies to further the social stahility and progress socially, economically and politically. Actions of the Government, should be accounted for social morality. Therefore, the actions of the individuals would reflect on the actions of the Government. 123. The Noida Authority's failure to enforce compliance, recover dues, and monitor project implementation demonstrates gross negligence despite the Comptroller and Auditor General's (CAG) report highlighting irregularities and no action has been initiated against delinquent officials makes Noida Authority accountable for the same. The Supreme Court in Union of India v. Hindustan Development Corporation" held that public authorities can be held accountable for creating legitimate expectations that are later breached. The project facility has not been constructed or delivered to the public despite advertisement.

N. SCOPE OF JUDICIAL INTERFERENCE 124. One of the points that falls for determination is the scope of judicial interference in matters of administrative decisions, administrative action of the State and its instrumentalities. What we have to ascertain now is whether the decision of the authority in allotment, implementation and development of the project was exercised in good faith or was done with malafide intentions to grant undue benefits to the builders.

IA-30/ND/2026 in IB-1114/ND/2020

125. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Udgar Gagan Properties Limited Vs. Sant Singh has been held that the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable as it is only a rule of practice based on sound and proper exercise of discretion and not a jurisdictional bar. The Court can quash an illegal action based on fraud or abuse of process of law. 126. Normally the court would not have intervened in the administrative decisions, nor gone beyond the prayer made in the writ petition going through the facts as taken in the pleadings it is clear that the action of the Noida authority, right from the inception of the sports city project was marred with unfairness, irrationality and illegality and fraud. The administrative decision taken were completely contrary to the scheme of the project, contrary to the terms of the brochure, terms of the lease and the allotment letter, which had caused a huge loss to the state exchequer, hence we had no option but to intervene in the instant matter. 127. Looking into the public interest involved, the court is escalating the limits of this writ petition, and going beyond the prayer made in the writ petition. Court has the power to pass orders and to go beyond the prayer for substantial justice, and to take judicial notice of facts that are presented during the course of a case and pass appropriate directions. These facts show that not only is the Petitioner approaching the Court with unclean hands, the hands of officers of the Noida Authority are equally sullied. This has caused loss of resources (land on which development was permitted as quid pro quo for the development of the sports facilities), loss of revenue (payment of lease rent, interest and penalty) and loss of public facilities (as the sports facilities have not been made).

IA-30/ND/2026 in IB-1114/ND/2020

128. The intention behind the Government actions and purposes is to further the public welfare and the national interest. Public good is synonymous to protection of the interests of the citizens as a territorial unit or nation as a whole. It also aims to further the public policies. The limitations of the policies are kept along with the public interest to prevent the exploitation or misuse or abuse of the office or the executive actions for personal gain or for illegal gratification. 129. The so-called public policy cannot be a camouflaged for abuse of the power and trust entrusted with a public authority or public servant for the performance of public duties. Misuse implies doing of something improper. The essence of impropriety is replacement of a public motive for a private one. When satisfaction sought in the performance of duties is for mutual personal gain, the misuse is usually termed as corruption. The holder of a public office is said to have misused his position when in pursuit of a private satisfaction, as distinguished from public interest, he has done something which he ought not to have done. O. CHI INQUIRY 130. This case can be a case study of the dirty nexus of the builders and the officials of the Noida Authority, where benefits after benefit were doled out to the builders, which was completely contrary to the Scheme, MOA and the implementation of the Sports City Scheme. In last so many years in the Noida Authority a number of officers would have come and gone and surprisingly no one blowed a whistle to the scam, or took any action against them, and did no efforts to recover the outstanding dues, and continued to extend undue benefits / favors to all the allotee/sub-lesses of the sports city, which was contrary to the interest of Noida Authority/Bank and the State Government.

IA-30/ND/2026 in IB-1114/ND/2020

131. What is most shocking is CAG unearthed the scam in 2021, but till date Noida Authority or the State Government have not lodged a single FIR against any of the officials, who were involved in the scam. No effort has been made to retrieve the losses, only a notice was sent in 24.07.2023 asking the builders to pay the outstanding premium. However, no action has been taken to recover the dues. This shows how influential the builder lobby is, and how well entrenched there are in the government system. 132. The Court will not be wrong to say that the efforts are made to shield the corrupt officers and also the builders who had made huge amount of money by defrauding the State Government, Noida Authority. 133. The court also realises that all investigations cannot be entrusted to the CBI. The courts should infact be reluctant in straight away referring the matters to CBI. However, in view of the possibility of involvement of high functionaries, a CBI enquiry is more desirable. 134. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has, in Disha v State of Gujarat, found justification in transferring matters to CBI or other Special Agencies when powerful and influential persons or State Authority are involved in the investigation and in cases where an investigation is not likely to go in the proper direction or be biased. This resort, the Hon'ble Court holds, is to lend credibility to the final outcome. Considering that successive officers on various key positions in an institution like Noida Authority and State Government have turned the blind eye to monumental failure on the part of the allottees, and several of these officers are in important and high positions now, a direction to an independent agency to investigate the matter at hand would be appropriate.

IA-30/ND/2026 in IB-1114/ND/2020

This is more so in view of the report of the CAG, on which no action has been taken either by the State or Noida Authority. 135. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of West Bengal v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal", has held as follows- "70. Before parting with the case, we deem it necessary to emphasise that despite wide powers conferred by Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution, while passing any order, the Courts must bear in mind certain self-imposed limitations on the exercise of these constitutional powers. The very plenitude of the power under the said articles requires great caution in its exercise. Insofar as the question of issuing a direction to CBI to conduct investigation in a case is concerned, although no inflexible guidelines can be laid down to decide whether or not such power should be exercised but time and again it has been reiterated that such an order is not to be passed as a matter of routine or merely because a party has levelled some allegations against the local police. This extraordinary power must be exercised sparingly, cautiously and in exceptional situations where it becomes necessary to provide credibility and instil confidence in investigations or where the incident may have national and international ramifications or where such an order may be necessary for doing complete justice and enforcing the fundamental rights. Otherwise CBI would be flooded with a large number of cases and with limited resources, may find it difficult to properly investigate even serious cases and in the process lose its credibility and purpose with unsatisfactory investigations."

136. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Minor Irrigation & Rural Engg. Services, U.P. v. Sahngoo Ram, has held that an order directing an enquiry by CBI should be passed only when the High Court, after considering the material on record, comes to a conclusion that such material does disclose a prima facie case calling for an investigation by CBI or any other similar agency.

IA-30/ND/2026 in IB-1114/ND/2020 BVG India Ltd. vs. Three C Facility Management. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter K.V. Rajendran V. Superintendent of Police, CBCID has held as follows- "13. The issue involved herein, is no more res integra. This Court has time and again dealt with the issue under what circumstances the investigation can be transferred from the State investigating agency to any other independent investigating agency like CBL. It has been held that the power of transferring such investigation must be in rare and exceptional cases where the court finds it necessary in order to do justice between the parties and to instil confidence in the public mind, or where investigation by the State police lacks credibility and it is necessary for having a fair, honest and complete investigation", and particularly. when it is imperatiee to retain public confidence in the impartial working of the State agencies." 138. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. has held as follows: "31.... this Court or the High Court has power under Article 136 or Article 226 to order investigation by CBI.

That, however, should be done only in some rare and exceptional case, otherwise, CBI would be flooded with a large number of cases and would find it impossible to property investigate all of them." 139. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rubabbuddin Sheikh v. State of Gujarat, has held that when the accused are very senior officers of the state then, the investigation by the State investigating agency may not be satisfactorily held. Thus, in order to do justice and instil confidence in the minds of the victims as well of the public, the State police authority could not be allowed to continue with the investigation when allegations and offences were mostly against top officials. Then the investigation should be handed over to any other independent investigating agency. 140. In view of the above, this Court has no other recourse but to refer the investigation to the CBL The CBI would also investigate IA-30/ND/2026 in IB-1114/ND/2020 BVG India Ltd. vs. Three C Facility Management the role of all the persons involved in this scam. We hope and trust that the investigation would be carried out and completed expeditiously.

P. CORPORATE INSOLVENCY 141. In the case of the petitioner the corporate insolvency process initiated seem to be tailor made, and is nothing but outcome of a nefarious design, of the petitioner and the fraud committed by the promoter/management of the petitioner company, to keep away from the entire responsibility of development of the sports facility of the sports city project. Here the promoters of the petitioner had made a web of companies and they requested to execute various lease deeds with the other member/ subsidiary companies, which were wholly owned and controlled by the promoters (namely, Nirmal Singh, Surpreet Singh Suri and Vidur Bhardwaj). On their request, Noida Authority had executed various sub-leases but it seems over a period of time they have sold off the companies/transferred the shares to third party/entities even without taking permission from Noida Authority as well as without completing the first milestone of the project, which was pre-condition of such transfer. 142. The insolvency was a strategic manoeuvre designed solely to evade liabilities and shirk the responsibility of providing the promised sports facilities.

143. The question now is, as to whether the company which has gone into insolvency can be prosecuted for the offences done by the company in defrauding Noida Authority as well as the state and other stake holders /creditors. 144. The intention of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code was not to allow the unscrupulous promoters to siphon away the money and then take the illegal advantage of the law and initiate, insolvency

IA-30/ND/2026 in IB-1114/ND/2020 BVG India Ltd. vs. Three C Facility Management proceeding just to avoid to fulfil their obligations and also to avoid civil and criminal liabilities. Creation of companies for short periods and specific purposes leads to the futility of their resolution and even insolvency. It only carries liabilities which will extinguish or greatly diminish with the resolution/ liquidation process. This cannot have been the intention behind IBC. 145. The progress of law is seldom able to keep up with devices of misuse or provide for every eventuality. As such, in Common Law jurisdictions, the Judiciary has the power, and the duty, to fill the gaps that are exposed on a case-to-case basis, keeping the object of the statute in mind. The object of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) is, inter alia maximization of value of assets of a corporate debtor, promotion of entrepreneurship. availability of credit and to balance interest of all stakeholders including the government. It is not the intent of IBC to allow parking and obliteration of loss or liability by resorting to CIRP. Such course of action would be an act of fraud on the statue. The intent of IBC is never to hamper the project of national importance. 146. The IBC is still evolving both in India and abroad. In fact, the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law has set up a Working Group V to fill up the void in Insolvency Law pertaining to insolvency of enterprise groups, on this issue the inter-dependence of (corporate) group members across different countries to provide for cross-border insolvency law guidelines. This need to fill up the void in the I.B. Code has also been recognized by the Government of India, Ministry of Corporate Affairs vide public notice dated 18.06.2018. Q. EFFECT ON CONSORTIUM WHEN A MEMBER OF THE CONSORTIUM GOES INTO THE INSOLVENCY

IA-30/ND/2026 in IB-1114/ND/2020 BVG India Ltd. vs. Three C Facility Management. As far as the insolvency of a member of a consortium is concerned, very few jurisdictions have any laws on the said subject matter. No significant development has come in the international law pertaining to the same which would give guidance in such situations. The present case thus presents a very interesting, and novel, legal question. 148. What will be the effect on a Consortium when a Member of the Consortium goes into insolvency under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016? 149. We are constrained to pass guidelines in the instant case as the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 is silent qua the rights of other consortium members, in case one of the members goes into insolvency. Since the companies of consortiums apply in development of mega projects and if this vacuum is not filled, even solvent companies, which are members of the consortium might be pulled into insolvency because of insolvency of one of the consortium members. As the insolvent member would not be able to complete its part of the project and non completion of the project will definitely impact the other companies, who are the Members of the Consortium.

The object of IB Code, 2016 is not to pull a solvent company into insolvency. R. RECOMMENDATIONS 150. On the basis of analysis of law made in the foregoing paragraphs, we consider it appropriate to lay down the following recommendations in response to the question framed in Para 148:- "(a) As a measure of first recourse, the IRP shall communicate to the company and the Authority for seeking Company's willingness continue to perform its functions/ obligations in the contract awarded to the IA-30/ND/2026 in IB-1114/ND/2020 BVG India Ltd. vs. Three C Facility Management consortium of which the said company is a member. This would be in furtherance of the functions of the IRP under Section 20 of the IBC. This communication shall be done within a maximum period of 4 weeks of commencement of CIRP and shall be independent of the constitution of CoC. If no such intention communicated within the said period, it will be presumed that the company is unwilling participate in the subject project (b) If the IRP, on an assessment of the capabilities of the Company (consortium member facing CIRP), is of the opinion that the said company cannot usefully or meaningfully participate in the husiness of the consortium, he shall so communicate to the other consortium members and the Authority (for the said project) within the period provided in para (a) above.

The other consortium members (jointly severally) shall then have an option undertake the remaining project their own and complete the same. The exercise of the option by the consortium members to complete the project shall be done within a period of 4 weeks, which shall commence either from the expiry of the 4 week period mentioned in para (a) above (in the event communication is received from the IRP) or within 4 weeks from the communication of the IRP to the effect that the said company is not in a position to participate in the business of the consortium. (c) If the consortium members fail to communicate their willingness to complete the project on their own and without the participation of the member facing CIRP or express their inability to complete the said IA-30/ND/2026 in IB-1114/ND/2020 BVG India Ltd. vs. Three C Facility Management project, the Authority shall make alternate arrangements to ensure timely completion of the project." 151. These guidelines have been laid down bearing in mind the completion of the project and also to secure the interest of all the stakeholders.

S. DIRECTIONS 152. In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, this Court issues the following directions: (a) The parties hereto are directed to take steps in accordance with the recommendations made in para 150 of this judgment in the interest of expeditious completion of the subject project, and (b)The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) is hereby directed to lodge a complaint against all the conniving officials of the Noida Authority and the allottees builders involved in allotment, development, sanction of Sports City Project and any other person who may be involved in the present scam. (c) However, considering the overall conduct of the parties, we refuse to exercise our discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to accord any relief prayed for in the instant writ petition. (d)With the aforementioned directions, this petition stands disposed of. (e) Parties to bear their own costs.”

30. As in terms of the provisions of Section 31(6) of the Code, the proceedings cannot be continued/instituted qua the assets of the CD, since in the present

IA-30/ND/2026 in IB-1114/ND/2020 BVG India Ltd. vs. Three C Facility Management case, valuation of assets of the CD was found nil, the CD would not be entitled to claim benefit of Section 31(6) qua any of the assets claiming the same as assets of the CD and any of the assets found in the record of CD in future would be available to be claimed by creditors/legitimate claimants. In the backdrop of the aforementioned factual position, discussion, analysis and findings, the IA- 30/2026 filed by the Applicant/ RP for approval of the Resolution Plan is allowed. The Plan submitted by the SRA, certified by the RP by issuing a certificate in the prescribed form, viz. Form “H”, is approved. It is directed that the SRA shall implement the plan as per the timelines indicated in the Resolution Plan. 31. 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 terms of the plan and implementation schedule given in the Plan; ii. The SRA/CD would be entitled to any relief or concession. iii. As the value of the assets of the CD has been assessed as nil and the SRA has submitted the Resolution Plan with such value, it will have no right or claim on any of such assets, value of which has been assessed as nil. The creditors would be entitled to assert their claim and right on such assets, which are valued as nil as also on such assets which are not disclosed in IM as also in Valuation Report. iv. The SRA will also have no claim or entitlement on any of the units including on flat no. 2301 (Tower FS 15th Level).

IA-30/ND/2026 in IB-1114/ND/2020 BVG India Ltd. vs. Three C Facility Management v. As the valuation of assets of the CD has been nil, no clean slate principle would apply to any of the assets reflected in books of the accounts of the CD qua which the creditors/claimants would like to assert their right, as the CIRP cannot be resorted to facilitate money laundering or to dupe the secured/unsecured creditors. vi. The order of the moratorium in respect of 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; vii. The SRA shall act in terms of the provisions of Section 31(4) of the IBC, 2016; viii. The Monitoring Committee shall file progress report/s regarding the implementation of the Plan before this Tribunal, every month; ix. 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; x. 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, and xi. The RP shall intimate each claimant about the principle or formulae, as the case may be, for payment of debts under the Plan. 32. 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.

IA-30/ND/2026 in IB-1114/ND/2020 BVG India Ltd. vs. Three C Facility Management. A copy of this Order shall also be sent by the Court Officer and the Applicant to the IBBI and RoC for their record. 34. The plan is approved, subject to the condition that the Applicant will furnish another performance bank guarantee for an amount of Rs.1,25,000/- to the monitoring committee. 35. A copy of this order be also sent to the office of Director CBI, Director ED, as also to CEO NOIDA for being taken note of in the pending investigations qua the affairs of Three C Group of the Companies, as when in certain companies of Three C Group, the homebuyers are not getting the units allotted to them, in certain other companies the money/land is parked without there being any homebuyers. Both the Court Officer and RP would do the needful. 36. The IA stands disposed of.

Sd/- Sd/- (BANWARI LAL MEENA) (ASHOK KUMAR BHARDWAJ) MEMBER (T) MEMBER (J) Iqraa/Vishal

IA-30/ND/2026 in IB-1114/ND/2020 BVG India Ltd. vs. Three C Facility Management

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