Greater Noida Industrial Development ... vs Mr Pawan Kumar Goyal Resolution ...

IN THE MATTER OF: Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority Through Its Manager (Institutional) Plot No. 01, Knowledge Park-04 Greater Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar Uttar Pradesh-201308 ...Appellant

Versus

1. Mr. Pawan Kumar Goyal Resolution Professional for Swati Health and Education Services Private Limited Having Office At: 304, D.R. Chambers, 12/56 D.B. Gupta Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi- 110005 ...Respondent No.1

2. Mr. Sandeep Gupta Ms. Shalini Gupta & Mr. Anoop Kumar Mittal (Consortium Members) Having Office Address at: D-105, South City-1 Sector-41, Gurugram, Haryana ...Respondent No.2

Present: For Appellant : Mr. U.N. Singh and Ms. Sandhya Chaturvedi, Advocates

For Respondent : Mr. Iswar Mohapatra, Advocate for R-1. Mr. Arpit Singh Arora and Mr. Arihant Sagar Jain, Advocates for R-2. Mr. Rishi Singhal, Advocate for Financial Creditor.

JUDGMENT

(Hybrid Mode)

[Per: Arun Baroka, Member (Technical)] This is an Appeal against the impugned order dated 03.10.2024 passed

by National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi ("Adjudicating Authority") in I.A. No. 3918/2024 in C.P (IB) No. 1035/2020. This I.A. No. 3918/2024 was

seeking the recall and setting aside of the impugned order dated 02.04.2024

passed in another IA No. 1454/2024 in the same CP.

Brief relevant facts are as follows:

2. M/s Swati Health and Education Services Private Limited was allotted

20000 sq. mtrs. of the land on lease basis by Greater Noida Industrial

Development Authority (GNIDA) in Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh vide

a lease on 26.06.2013. M/s Swati Health and Education Services Private

Limited defaulted to pay the instalments as per schedule/reschedule and

GNIDA issued default notice and show cause notice raising the demand for

the defaulted amount against premium, additional compensation and lease

rent and penalties for time extension related to the completion of

construction.

3. In another development on a petition filed under Section 7 by one of

the Financial Creditor namely Eclear Leasing and Finance Private Limited.

The CIR proceedings were initiated against M/s Swati Health and Education

Services Private Limited vide order dated 04.03.2022 in CP (IB) No.

1035/ND/2020.

4. The Appellant herein i.e. GNIDA had submitted a claim of

Rs.21,41,95,542/- with the Resolution Professional in regard to the CIR

Proceedings against the Corporate Debtor - M/s Swati Health and Education

Services Private Limited. However, the RP admitted only an amount of Rs.

18,24,96,973/-. The Resolution Professional filed an IA No. 6324/2022 for

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 322 of 2025 2 of 25 approval of the Resolution Plan dated 15.11.2022 and another IA No.

2551/2023 was filed by the Appellant opposing the plan. Both of them were

heard together and disposed of vide order dated 24.08.2023. The Adjudicating

Authority observed that the Appellant, GNIDA is a secured Operational

Creditor.

5. Appellant - Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority is the

owner of the land in respect of which relief has been prayed in the present

appeal. It has allotted the set plot through a lease deed dated 26/06/2013 to

the Corporate Debtor to develop a project on the set plot as per the terms and

conditions laid down in the lease deed. The GNIDA has also handed over the

possession of the set plot of land to the corporate debtor. The Corporate

Debtor is in possession of the said premises and is liable for lease rental and

lease premium payments during the CIRP period.

6. The Appellant claims that, having first charge upon the demised

premises for the amount of unpaid instalments, charges, interest and other

dues, the claim of the GNIDA should have been treated at par with the secured

creditors. The Appellant GNIDA claims that it is a secured creditor within the

meaning of Section 3(30) and Section 3(31) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Code, 2016, and Section 13A of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Area

Development Act, 1976. Appellant claims that the Adjudicating Authority

approved the resolution plan without directing the Committee of Creditors to

reconsider incorporating the status of GNIDA as a secured creditor in the

resolution plan. Instead, its dues were treated on par with unsecured

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 322 of 2025 3 of 25 creditors, significantly impairing GNIDA's ability to recover the outstanding

amount and thereby contravening the established position under both the

IBC 2016 and Uttar Pradesh Industrial Area Development Act, 1976.

Appraisal

7. We have heard counsels of both sides and the applicant/SRA and also

perused the material placed on record.

8. The Appellant prays for the following reliefs:

a) Pass an order setting aside the impugned order dated 03.10.2024

passed by Adjudicating Authority in I.A. No. 3918 of 2024 in CP

(IB) 1035/2020; and

b) Pass an order allowing the prayer made by the Appellant-GNIDA

in I.A. No. 3918 of 2024 before the Ld. NCT New Delhi Bench; and,

c) Pass an order staying the proceeding in CP (IB) No. 1035/2020

during pendency of the present Appeal; and

d) Pass an order granting such other and further reliefs as this

Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit in the interest of justice.

9. The main ground of the Appellant is that the Adjudicating Authority

has failed to consider the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India

qua consideration of the authority as a secured Operational Creditor.

Appellant claims that prevailing law post Greater Noida Industrial

Development Authority versus Prabhjot Singh Soni and another favors the

Appellant herein, and the issue stands settled so far as the claim of the Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 322 of 2025 4 of 25 present Appellant as a secured creditor. In Civil Appeal No. 7590-7591 of

2023 of case titled as Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority Vs

Prabhjit Singh Soni & Anr., the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held

the Appellant Authority as a Secured Operational Creditor even though, by

virtue of Section 13-A of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Area Development Act,

1976. The Appellant GNIDA had submitted the proof of claim of ₹21.42 crores

(approximately) with the resolution professional. However, only an amount of

₹18.25 crores (approximately) was admitted by the resolution professional.

10. By virtue of Sections 13, 13A and 14 of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial

Area Development Act 1976 Act, the Appellant had first charge over the

assets of the Corporate Debtor and was therefore a secured creditor within

the meaning of Section 3(30) read with Section 3(31) of the IBC. The Appellant

claims that any consideration of the Greater Noida Authority as a secured

Operational Creditor would not create any prejudice to any of the parties and

will be in the interest of justice.

11. The Appellant while opposing the approval of the resolution plan had

filed an IA No.2551/2023 and opposed the application of resolution

professional for approving the resolution plan [IA No. 6324/2022] preferred

by the resolution plan which was not considered in its favour by the

Adjudicating Authority vide order dated 24th August 2023. Later on, a

Company Appeal bearing No. 284/2024 was also preferred by the GNIDA

against the orders dated 24th August 2023, which was rejected on the

grounds of delay in filing.

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 322 of 2025 5 of 25

12. The Appellant also claims that the Interlocutory Application IA No.

1454/2024, which was filed by the Respondents, but the Appellant was not

notified and did not get any opportunity, and an ex-parte order was passed.

It also acknowledges that the IA No. 3918/2024, which was preferred by the

Appellant against the order dated 2nd April 2024 before the Adjudicating

Authority, was dismissed by order dated 3.10.2024. Also, the appeal, Appeal

No. 320/2025, preferred against the order dated 3.10.2024 in IA No.

3918/2024, was also dismissed by this Appellate Tribunal. It also

acknowledges the fact that the Civil Appeal bearing No. 7473/2024, filed

before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, was also dismissed simply on citation.

13. Despite the above facts of dismissal at the level of Adjudicating

Authority, this Appellate Tribunal and also before the Hon'ble Supreme Court

of India, the Appellant claims that this appeal is qua quantification of the

amount as claimed by the Appellant Authority. In the backdrop of the issue

as agitated, it is that of the secured creditor, which falls for determination

before this Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal. The Appellant claims that the amount

as claimed by the Appellant GNIDA before the RP after commencement of

CIRP was 21.41 Cr, whereas the amount admitted by the Resolution

Professional is 18.24 Cr, and finally the amount approved for the Appellant

in the Resolution Plan is 6.79 Cr. The amount as claimed the Appellant was

that of a "Lessor Authority", which derived its right as a "Secured Creditor"

from the Statutory lease. Non-Consideration of claim as secured creditor is

not only against the law but would also grave miscarriage of justice as the

Appellant being a Public Authority and runs on the Public Money. Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 322 of 2025 6 of 25

14. As multiple petitions and appeals were involved in this case, we have

tried to capture all the IAs and appeals in a single chart as follows:

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 322 of 2025 7 of 25

15. Now it will be instructive to look into the sequence of events in this

case to decide the appeal of Appellant-Greater Noida Industrial Development

Authority.

16. Based on an Application under Section 7 of the Code, by one of the

Financial Creditors, namely E-Clear Leasing and Finance Private Limited, in

Company Petition IB-1035/ND/2020, the Corporate Debtor, namely, M/s.

Swati Health and Education Services Private Limited, went into CIRP vide an

order dated 4th March 2022, as per the orders of NCLT, New Delhi.

17. The Appellant in this case, GNIDA, had submitted its proof of claim of

₹21.42 crores (approximately) with the RP in regard to the CIRP of the CD.

However, only an amount of ₹18.25 crores (approximately) was admitted by

the RP.

18. For the approval of the resolution plan, the Resolution Professional

filed an IA No. 6324/2022. While the present Appellant, Greater Noida

Authority, while opposing the approval of the resolution plan filed another IA

No. 2551/2023. The Adjudicating Authority considered both the IAs and

approved the resolution plan on 08/02/2023.

19. The present Appellant was not satisfied with the approval of the

resolution plan by the Adjudicating Authority, and it challenged it in CA (AT)

(Ins.) No.284/2024. This appeal was rejected by this Appellate Tribunal on

the grounds of limitation on 21.02.2024. This Appellate Tribunal had noted

that "4. Our jurisdiction to condone the delay is limited to 15 days only as per

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 322 of 2025 8 of 25 Section 61(2) proviso. Admittedly, the appellant is praying for condonation of

98 days' delay in filing the appeal. We are unable to accept the prayer of the

appellant to condone the delay of 98 days in filing the appeal. The delay

condonation application is dismissed. Consequently, the memo of appeal is

rejected."

20. It is also brought to our notice that, due to the problems faced by the

Respondent/SRA's in actions and non-acceptance of the amount by the

Greater Noida Authority, the Respondent filed an Interlocutory Application

(IA No. 6294/2023) in inter alia, praying for a direction to the Appellant to

accept the payment and approve the resolution plan.

21. Simultaneously, in parallel proceedings before the Adjudicating

Authority, monitoring committee filed another Interlocutory Application [I.A.

No. 6401 of 2023] for the implementation of the plan [even though the

Respondent claims that this was a counter blast by the Monitoring

Committee, as it had filed the IA No. 6294/2023, as noted in the previous

paragraph] and seeking the forfeiture of the security deposit of the SRA on

account of non-implementation of the plan. The Adjudicating Authority, vide

an order dated 24.01.2024, disposing of both the IAs directed the SRA to

deposit ₹6.79 crores in an escrow account to be paid to GNIDA and that

amount would not be distributed to the Greater Noida Authority without an

order from the adjudicating authority.

22. Furthermore, the successful resolution applicant filed another

interlocutory application [IA No. 1454/2024] seeking a direction that the Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 322 of 2025 9 of 25 monitoring committee should not take coercive steps against SRA. In this IA

the Adjudicating Authority vide Order dated 02.04.2024 directed the

Appellant- Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority to accept

payment deposited in the escrow account within 3 days and also directed

SRA to implement the plan within 30 days of the order.

23. However, GNIDA filed another IA No. 3918 of 2024 seeking the recall

of this order of 2.04.2024. However, the same was dismissed by the

Adjudicating Authority vide order dated 3 October 2024. In the same order of

3rd October 2024, in another I.A. No. 2233/2024, which was filed by the SRA

in the same CP, seeking directions to GNIDA to comply with the resolution

plan and withdraw the money kept in the escrow account, was allowed by the

Adjudicating Authority.

24. However, GNIDA challenged the resolution plan before this Appellate

Tribunal in CA (AT) (Ins.) No.284/2024, but this was dismissed vide order

dated 21.02.2024 of this Appellate Tribunal on the grounds of limitation.

25. We note that Adjudicating Authority had disposed of IA No. 2233/2024

filed by SRA and IA No. 3918/2024 filed by the Appellant, Greater Noida

Authority, with the observations that the order dated 24.08.2023 approving

the resolution plan has attained finality, being not interfered with by this

Appellate Tribunal. Further directions were given to the Appellant to accept

the amount deposited in the escrow account.

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 322 of 2025 10 of 25

26. We note from the records that the resolution plan dated 15-11-2022,

which was submitted by Respondent/SRA, was duly approved by the COC in

its 9th meeting held on 24.11.2022. The same was approved by the Learned

Adjudicating Authority with an order dated 24.08.2023.

27. Furthermore, we note that the Adjudicating Authority, vide an order

dated 02.04.2024, directed SRA to take steps in terms of the resolution plan

approved by the learned Adjudicating Authority with an order dated

24.08.2023, within a period of 30 days. However, we also note that even after

more than five months after the approval of the resolution plan, the

Appellant, that is, Greater Noida Authority, did not hand over the possession

of the project land to the responsible Respondent.

28. We note that the approved resolution plan requires the SRA to pay a

total sum of ₹25,42,39,000/- towards the settlement of CIRP cost and all

other debts of the CD within a period of 90 days from the effective date. It is

brought to our notice that SRA/Respondent made several efforts to

implement the approved resolution plan and make payment of ₹6.79 crore to

the Appellant. This amount includes the principal outstanding amount of

₹4.6 crores, lease rent of ₹1.09 crores, and additional compensation amount

of ₹1.10 crores. The Respondent, has brought to our notice that, due to non-

issuance of chalans by the Appellant the payment of the amounts as per the

approved resolution plan, settling all the claims of the authority, could not

be made by the Respondent/SRA.

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 322 of 2025 11 of 25

29. We further observe that Greater Noida Authority assailed the Order

dated 03.10.2024 passed in IA No. 2233/2024 in in an appeal before this

appellate tribunal with CA (AT) (Ins.) No.320/2025, but the same was

dismissed by this Appellate Tribunal vide an Order dated 10/03/2025 on the

grounds that the Resolution Plan stands approved and cannot be interfered

with.

30. We also note that the Adjudicating Authority had approved the

resolution plan on 24/08/2023, and the judgment, very vehemently argued

by the Appellant - Greater Noida Authority, in Greater Noida Industrial

Development Authority v. Prabhjit Singh Soni was delivered on February

12, 2024. And moreover, the challenge to the approval of the resolution plan

was rejected on 21.02.2024 on the grounds of limitation in CA (AT) (Ins.)

No.284/2024, as has been noted by us here in earlier. And later on, when

the Adjudicating Authority directed the Appellant to accept the amount of the

SRA for implementation of the resolution plan, from the escrow account in

its order dated 02.04.2024, the Appellant filed an IA seeking the recall of this

order. This recall Interlocutory Application No. 2233/2024, was also

dismissed on 03.10.2024. Against the dismissal of the recall Interlocutory

Application, the Appellant filed an appeal CA (AT) (Ins.) No. 320/2025 with

this Appellate Tribunal.

31. While disposing of this appeal CA (AT) (Ins.) No. 320/2025, this

tribunal had ordered as follows:

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 322 of 2025 12 of 25 "Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 320/2025

1. Heard Learned Counsel Mr. U.N. Singh appearing for the Appellant.

2. This Appeal has been filed against an Order dated 03.10.2024 passed by the Adjudicating Authority in I.A. No. 3918/2024.

3. The Appellant has filed its claim in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) of the Corporate Debtor, against the amount submitted of Rs.21 Crore and odd, the admission was made of only Rs.18 Crore by the Resolution Professional (RP). The objection was also raised by the Appellant by I.A. No. 2551/2023 questioning the admission of only Rs.18,24,96,973/- and other grounds. The Resolution Plan was approved by the Committee of Creditors (CoC) and thereafter the Application for approval of the Plan was filed being I.A. No. 6423(ND)/2022 as well as the Application filed by the Appellant I.A. No. 2551(ND)/2023 both the Applications came to be heard and decided by the Order dated 24.08.2023, by which Order, Adjudicating Authority has approved the Resolution Plan and disposed the I.A. No.2551/2023 also.

4. Aggrieved by the Order dated 24.08.2023 in Company Appeal 284/2024 was filed with delay. This Tribunal vide its Order dated 21.02.2024 has dismissed the Company Appeal filed by the Appellant as barred by time. In the Resolution Plan against the amount admitted, Rs.6.79 Crore was proposed to the Appellant as an Operational Creditor. An I.A. was filed by the Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA) seeking a direction to the Appellant to accept the said amount which has been proposed in the Plan being I.A. No.2233/2024. Appellant opposed the Application, however, the Adjudicating Authority disposed of the Application taking the view that the Order passed by the Adjudicating Authority dated 24.08.2023 has become final. The Order passed by the Adjudicating Authority on I.A. No. 2233/2024 is as follows:

"IA-2233/2024: The prayer made in the captioned application reads thus:-

a) Direct the Respondent No.1/GNIDA to comply with the Resolution Plan of the Applicant approved by this Hon'ble Adjudicating Authority vide Order dated 24.08.2023 and the Order dated 02.04.2024 passed by this Hon'ble Adjudicating Authority in I.A. No. 1454/2024 in CP (1B) No. 1035/2020.

b) direct the Respondent No. 1 to issue a challan and accept the amount of Rs.6,79,07,777.00 (Rupees Six Crore Seventy-

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 322 of 2025 13 of 25 Nine Lakh Seven Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy-Seven only) deposited by the Applicant in the escrow account bearing no. 307301010294690 in the name of "Consortium of Sandeep Gupta, Shalini Gupta and Anoop Kumar Mittal, in Union Bank of India, Khari Baouli, Delhi- 110006, in terms of the Order dated 02.04.2024 as passed by this Ld. Adjudicating Authority in full and final satisfaction of its claim against the Corporate Debtor;

c) direct the Respondent No.1 to cooperate, assist and support the Applicant for grant of various approvals and consents in terms of the approved Resolution Plan;

d) pass any further order in favour of the Applicants that this Hon'ble Adjudicating Authority deems fit under the facts and circumstances of the present case.

Mr. U.N. Singh, Ld. Counsel for the Respondent i.e. Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority argued with vehemence that in terms of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority v. Prabhjit Singh Soni &s Anr. [Civil Appeal Nos. 7590-7591 of 2023], the Respondent need to treated as secured creditor and the amount deposited by the SRA in escrow account is not in proportion to what is payable to the Respondent as per the law declared by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority v. Prabhjit Singh Soni & Anr. (Civil Appeal Nos. 7590-7591 of 2023]. It is also his submission that even in terms of the order passed by this Tribunal, approving the plan, reproduced in para 5 of the reply, the land/agency i.e. Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority is entitled to share in bid amount much more than the amount which has been deposited 1n escrow account. The plea is opposed by the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant. In any case, indubitably, the order dated 24.08.2023 in terms of which the resolution plan has been approved could not be interfered by the Hon'ble NCLAT, though on the ground of limitation. May be on any ground, once the order passed by this Tribunal is not disturbed by Hon'ble NCLAT, the same has attained finality. In any case, the present application is disposed of with the direction that the Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority would accept the amount deposited in escrow account without prejudice to its contention as espoused in para 5 of the reply. The application stands disposed of. The contention raised by Respondent cannot be adjudicated in the present application moved by the RP."

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 322 of 2025 14 of 25

5. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that it has been accepted by the Adjudicating Authority that Appellant is a Secured Operational Creditor, hence he was entitled for the payment as Secured Operational Creditor. The amount which was proposed by the Appellant of Rs.7 and odd Crore has attained finality by approval of the Resolution Plan. Appellant having unsuccessfully challenged the said Order subsequent to the approval of the Resolution Plan which has became final, Appellant cannot be allowed to question the pay out to the Appellant. Any question with regard to entitlement of the Appellant was subject matter of the Order by which the Plan was approved.

6. Plan approval on 24.08.2023 having attained finality, we do not find any error in the view taken by the Adjudicating Authority that the said Order has become final and the amount which has been deposited as per the Resolution Plan is entitled to be received by the Appellant.

7. We thus do not find any error in the Impugned Order passed by the Adjudicating Authority.

Appeal dismissed."

32. It was noted by this Appellate Tribunal that plan approval on

24.08.2023 has attained finality, and therefore it did not find any error in the

view taken by the Adjudicating Authority that the said order has become

final, and the amount which has been deposited as per the resolution plan is

entitled to be received by the Appellant.

33. We also note that this dismissal in CA (AT) (Ins.) No.320 of 2025 was

challenged by the Appellant in Civil Appeal No.7473/2025 before the

Honourable Supreme Court of India, which dismissed the Appeal as per the

following order:

"1. Having heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority, and having gone through the materials on record, we find no good reason to interfere with the

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 322 of 2025 15 of 25 impugned order passed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi.

2. The civil appeal is accordingly dismissed.

3. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of."

34. In the present appeal before this Appellate Tribunal, the Appellant -

the Greater Noida Authority, vide CA(AT)Ins No. 322/2025, is seeking to set

aside the order dated 03.10.2024 passed in IA No. 3918/2024 and prays to

allow the application.

35. From the facts and circumstances of the case, we note that the SRA

has tried to implement the resolution plan but has not been successful due

to non-cooperation, lack of assistance and support of the Appellant. The

SRA/Respondent also wrote various letters and emails and also personally

met with the officers of the Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority

to accept the amount as envisaged in the resolution plan and thereafter issue

necessary approvals as envisaged under the resolution plan for effecting

implementation of the resolution plan.

36. On the other hand, the erstwhile resolution professional, as well as the

chairman of the monitoring committee, brings to our notice that the approved

resolution plan is unconditional and has attained finality. However, the

Successful Resolution Applicant has not implemented it as per the terms of

the plan and specific directions of the Hon'ble NCLT vide order dated

02.04.2024. The RP brings to our notice that SRA is making the

implementation of the approved resolution plan conditional, that is,

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 322 of 2025 16 of 25 dependent on the acceptance of the money by the Appellant that is Greater

Noida Authority.

37. We note that the present appeal seeks to set aside the impugned order

dated 03/10/2024 passed by the Adjudicating Authority in IA No. 3918 of

2024 in C.P. (I.B) No. 1035/2020 and pass the orders allowing the prayer

made by the Appellant-GNIDA in IA No. 3918 of 2024 before NCLT New Delhi.

It also seeks to stay the proceedings in CP within (IB No. 1035/2020) during

the pendency of the present appeal.

38. We note that the order dated 03.10.2024 was a common order

disposing of both the IAs of the Appellant, namely IA No. 3918 of 2024 and

also the IA No. 2233/2024 by the Respondent/SRA.

39. Furthermore, on the dismissal of the IA No. 2233/2024, which was the

GNIDA's recall application, the Appellant filed an appeal before this Appellate

Tribunal in CA (AT) (Ins.) No. 320/2025. And as noted by us here, in an

earlier, this Appellate Tribunal had dismissed the appeal. Later on, in its

appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal

No.7473/2025, even the Supreme Court had dismissed it on 14.07.2025. In

the appeal on the same order of 03.10.2024, which has attained finality on

the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the Appellant had

challenged IA No. 3918/2024, in which is a speaking order, was passed by

the Adjudicating Authority and that was unsuccessfully challenged by the

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 322 of 2025 17 of 25 Appellant before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, and now this is being

re-challenged before this appellate tribunal.

40. We find that no new facts have been brought before us. The Appeal is

challenging the same set of issues which have been challenged earlier, and

the earlier Orders have attained finality. Against the principles of res-judicata

the Appellant is re-agitating the issue and upset the Insolvency Resolution

Proceedings. The Appellant has not been acting to withdraw the amount from

the escrow account and issue the challan for implementation of the

resolution plan.

41. The matter was earlier reserved for orders on 20-03-2026. However, it

was brought to our notice that the Respondent No.2/SRA has not paid the

only Financial Creditor of the CD, even though the resolution plan was

approved way back in 2023. Respondent No. 2/SRA sought one month's time

to make the entire payment to the Financial Creditor. In this order, it was

also noted that the Appellant was willing to withdraw the sum available with

the escrow account with all the accrued interest. It was only required to

furnish a challan for the said purpose to the monitoring committee. The

relevant portion of the order of this Appellate Tribunal of 20th March 2026 is

extracted as below:

"20.03.2026: Heard both sides. Order Reserved.

2. Both sides are permitted to file any additional notes of submissions, if they are so desirous latest by 27.03.2023.

3. It was brought to the notice of the Tribunal that the Respondent No.2/SRA has not paid the only Financial Creditor of the CD even

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 322 of 2025 18 of 25 though the resolution plan was approved way back in 2023. The Respondent No.2/SRA seeks one months' time to make the entire payment to the Financial Creditor and the Financial Creditor agrees to it. However, we require the Respondent No.2/SRA to file an affidavit regarding the same by Monday i.e. 23.03.2026.

4. It is also brought to our notice that certain charges due to the Monitoring Committee is also outstanding. The counsel for the Chairman of the Monitoring Committee is required to provide the details of the charges outstanding to the Monitoring Committee and the Respondent No.2 is directed to file an affidavit that he would duly pay all the outstanding in terms of the resolution plan to the parties concerned within one month from today.

5. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that it is willing to withdraw the sum available with the Escrow account with all the accrued interest. It is now required to furnish a challan for the said purpose to the Monitoring Committee."

42. Thereafter, the matter was heard by this Appellate Tribunal on

21/04/2026. It was noted that

"Learned counsel for the SRA submits that, vis-a-vis the cost of the monitoring committee and payment to the financial creditor, the amount due payable to the monitoring committee will be paid directly to them in three weeks' time. So far as the payment to the financial creditor goes, he seeks an 8-week time period. The counsel for the said financial creditor makes a statement that it should be paid within a 4-week period. We only require both the parties to join to file their consensus memo or affidavit within a week.".

43. The Successful Resolution Applicant in this appeal CA (AT) (Ins.) No.

322/2025, filed an IA (Interlocutory Application) No. 2364 of 2026, in which

it claims that by the order of this Appellate Tribunal of 20th March 2026 some

incorrect and prejudicial impression has been created that the SRA has failed

to comply with its obligations under the approved resolution plan. The SRA

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 322 of 2025 19 of 25 claims that the resolution plan submitted by the Applicant/SRA was duly

approved by the COC on 25.11.2022 and thereafter approved by the

Adjudicating Authority on 24.08.2023. The said approval has attained

finality, having been upheld by this Appellate Tribunal. Pursuant to the

approved resolution plan, the applicant has already demonstrated its bona

fides by:

 depositing an amount of ₹6.79 crores towards the dues of GNIDA in

an escrow account

 incurring CIRP costs of approximately ₹1 crore

 furnishing a bank guarantee of ₹2.55 crores

44. The Applicant/SRA contends that, despite the above, the

implementation of the resolution plan has been hindered solely on account of

the conduct of GNIDA, which has failed to accept the resolution plan amount,

issue the requisite No Objection Certificate, and the position of the Corporate

Debtor.

45. The applicant states that in the hearing dated 20.03.2026, certain

submissions made by the counsel for the Financial Creditor, who is not a

party to the present proceedings, led to an erroneous recording by this

Appellate Tribunal that the applicant has not made payment and has sought

one month's time to do so. The said recording is factually incorrect and fails

to capture the conditional nature of the applicant's submission. The applicant

had in fact submitted that payment to the financial creditor would be made

within 30 days, subject to GNIDA accepting the resolution plan amount and

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 322 of 2025 20 of 25 the resolution professional handing over the possession and control of the

corporate assets. These conditions precedent have not been fulfilled till date.

The Applicant/SRA claims that these observations cause serious prejudice to

the applicant and is seeking appropriate clarification/modification of the

impugned observations to reflect the true and correct factual position. No

adverse inference be drawn against the applicant for reasons beyond its

control.

46. In its prayers in this IA No. 2364 of 2026, the Applicant/SRA prays for

the following reliefs:

"(a) Modify Para 3 of the Order dated 20.03.2026 to clarify that the Applicant/SRA shall make the payment of the entire dues to the Sole Financial Creditor within a period of 30 days from the date GNIDA accepts the Resolution Plan amount of Rs. 6.79 Crores and issues a No Objection Certificate (NOC) in full and final settlement of its dues;

(b) Modify Para 4 of the Order dated 20.03.2026 to clarify that the Applicant/SRA shall pay all dues to the Monitoring Committee within a period of 30 days from completion of all necessary steps to be taken by the Monitoring Committee for the transfer of the Corporate Debtor in favour of the SRA in terms of Part F of the Approved Resolution Plan;

(c) Clarify that the Resolution Professional shall handover possession and control of the assets of the Corporate Debtor to the Applicant/SRA simultaneously with or upon receipt of the balance consideration payable to the sole Financial Creditor in terms of the Resolution Plan;

(d) Pass such other and further orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the present case."

47. We note that as per the approved resolution plan, the effective timelines

were as under:

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 322 of 2025 21 of 25 B. The indicative timelines as per the resolution plan are as under: -

Process Timeline (Days) Effective date X Transfer of Project/CD to R.A X+30=Y Substitution of equity share by R.A Y+90 and appointment of new Directors Appointment of Monitoring Y+7 Committee Payment to Pending CIRP Cost X+90 Payment to Financial Creditors X+90 (unsecured) Payment to Operational Creditors X+90 (unsecured other creditors) Payment to Operational Creditors X+90 (other than Workmen & Employees)

48. On the other hand, the Erstwhile Resolution Professional and the

chairman of the monitoring committee, relying on above indicated timelines

for the implementation of the resolution plan, have brought to our notice that

the resolution plan was to be implemented within 90 days from the approval

date. Further, the SRA has not paid the fees and expenses of the monitoring

committee as per the terms of the resolution plan. There is still an outstanding

amount of fees and expenses of the monitoring committee amounting to

₹47,16,010, which has been shared with the counsel of the SRA on

20/03/2026. The erstwhile resolution professional also brings to our notice

that the approved resolution plan is unconditional and has attained finality,

but the SRA has not implemented the approved resolution plan as per the

terms of the plan and specific directions of the NCLT as per order dated

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 322 of 2025 22 of 25 02.04.2024. The erstwhile resolution professional brings to our notice that

SRA is making the implementation of the approved resolution plan as

conditional.

49. It is also noted that the approved resolution plan of the SRA is for

₹253,839,000. If an additional liability of ₹201,929,064 is satisfied and

saddled upon the SRA, then the resolution plan itself becomes unworkable.

Revival of the debtor company will become impossible if the SRA is sprung

with the surprise debts which are not part of the resolution. One can rely on

the case of Ghanshyam Das Mishra and also Section 31 of the IBC to come to

a conclusion that, after the approval of the Resolution Plan, the SRA cannot

be settled with additional burden.

50. We also note that if a resolution plan has to be challenged, then it can

be challenged on the limited grounds mentioned in Section 61 within a

particular time frame.

51. We also note that the Appellant had assailed the same order dated

31.10.2024 in CA (AT) (Ins.) No. 320 of 2025 before this Appellate Tribunal.

The facts of the appeal were similar, and the said appeal was dismissed on

merits with vide order dated 14.07.2025. Therefore, constructive res judicata

is also applicable in the present case.

52. We have noted the rival contentions, and bases of our analysis we find

that the appeal of the GNIDA lacks merit and therefore deserves to be

dismissed, as all its appeals have been either rejected or dismissed and the

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 322 of 2025 23 of 25 resolution plan approval has attained finality. Therefore, by raising the issues

which it had raised earlier also and which were taken up to the level of the

Honourable Supreme Court of India, the Appellant has been wasting the

precious judicial time and hindering implementation of the approved

resolution plan. By raising the same issues once again before us, the present

appeal is hit by res judicata. Therefore, this appeal deserves to be dismissed.

53. We also note that the Appellant GNIDA has been litigating it on one

pretext or the other in various fora even after the approval of the resolution

plan. Despite its dismissal or rejection, it has still not been assisting the

monitoring committee in implementing the resolution plan and frustrating the

Insolvency Resolution Process with respect to the Corporate Debtor and

deliberately frustrating the objects of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code,

2016. We don't have any hesitation to conclude that the GNIDA has not been

cooperating in the implementation of the resolution plan and is derailing the

successful implementation of the approved resolution plan in the guise of

various applications and appeals. For this reason, we deem it appropriate to

impose a cost of ₹1 lakh on GNIDA. We also direct GNIDA to assist in the

immediate implementation of all the directions issued by this Appellate

Tribunal/NCLT for implementation of the resolution plan.

54. Furthermore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find

any merit in the interlocutory application filed by the applicant/SRA in IA No.

2364 of 2026, which makes their Resolution Plan to be conditional, and we

reject the prayers in this IA.

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 322 of 2025 24 of 25 Orders

55. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the CA (AT) (Ins.) No. 322 of

2025 is dismissed. The interlocutory application filed by the Applicant/SRA

in IA No. 2364 of 2026 is also dismissed. We also direct the Appellant to

comply with the direction issued to make sure that the resolution plan is

implemented and accept the resolution plan amount, issue the requisite No

Objection Certificate. Further the Appellant is imposed a cost of ₹ 1 lakh to

be deposited in the PM Care fund. All related IAs are also disposed of.

[Justice N. Seshasayee] Member (Judicial)

[Arun Baroka] Member (Technical)

[Indevar Pandey] Member (Technical) New Delhi.

May 29, 2026.

pawan

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 322 of 2025 25 of 25