Haryana State Industrial ... vs M/S Sunrise Industries & Ors

IN THE MATTER OF: Haryana State Industrial Infrastructure ...Appellants Development Corporation Ltd, Haryana Versus Sunrise Industries & Anr. ...Respondents

Present: For Appellant : Mr. Shekhar Raj Sharma, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Sumant Batra, Mr. Sarthak Bhandari and Ms. Riya Kaur Arora, Advocates for RP. Mr. Abhishek Anand, Mr. Karan Kohli, Ms. Palak Kalra and Ms. Ridhima Mehrotra, Advocates for SRA.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

16.01.2026: Heard counsel for the Appellant and the Ld. Counsel

appearing for the RP as well as the SRA.

2. This appeal has been filed against the order of the Adjudicating

Authority dated 10.10.2025 passed in IA No. 17/ND/2025 by which the

resolution plan submitted by the SRA has been approved. The appellant

Haryana State Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. has

come in this appeal challenging the said order. Ld. Counsel for the appellant

submitted that the appellant's claim was Rs.23,98,03,865/- whereas only

Rs.6,02,28,168/- has been proposed in the plan.

3. It is further submitted that there is also note in the plan that if any

amount is enhanced by the Hon'ble Supreme Court the SRA will pay only

50% of the enhanced amount. It is submitted that there is no clarity as to with regard to proceedings before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Ld. Counsel

appearing for the RP submitted that the amount which has been proposed to

the appellant is in the same percentage that is 25.12% which was paid to the

Secured Financial Creditor. Appellant being Secured Operative Creditor was

entitled for the same payment. It is submitted that the enhancement by 50%

as contended by the appellant was in event the Supreme Court enhanced the

compensation beyond Rs.6.02 Crores which is paid to the appellant and the

said note is in favour of the appellant and does not cause any prejudice.

4. We have considered the submissions of the counsel for the parties and

perused the records.

5. In para-21 of the judgment the Adjudicating Authority has noticed the

claim admitted and the amount proposed. Ld. Counsel for the respondents

have also referred to paragraph 25 of the order which reads as follows:-

"25. Mr. Shekhar Raj, Ld. Counsel for HSIDC (Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation) raised an issue regarding the amount provided by the SRA. Apparently, the amount is 25.12% of the claim amount (Rs. 6, 02, 28, 168). Nevertheless, there is a declaration in the addendum resolution plan viz HSIDC would be paid by the SRA the additional amount, subject to outcome of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 8445/2024. The relevant excerpt of the addendum has already been reproduced hereinabove."

6. From the facts which is on the record of the impugned order it is clear

that appellant has been given the same payout which has been proposed to

the Secured Financial Creditor appellant being a Secured Operational

Creditor. Thus, the amount payout to the appellant is in accordance with law

and there cannot be said to be any violation. Now with regard to the enhanced

2 of 3 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1939 of 2025 50% to be borne by SRA in event of enhancement of the compensation in the

paragraph-21 with as asteric the said note has been provided which provides

that in event any enhancement is made 50% shall be borne by the Resolution

Applicant and 50% by Secured Creditors beyond Rs.6.02 Crores. The above

note thus does not operate in any prejudice to the appellant rather is a

beneficial note by which the appellant is entitled to receive enhanced

compensation if any order is passed by the Supreme Court, NCLT or any

other Forum. We thus do not find the said note in anyway prejudicial to the

appellant. Ld. Counsel for the respondent has rightly submitted that the said

note is part of the plan and has been approved with Committee of Creditors.

We thus are of the view that interest of the appellant has been duly protected

in the resolution plan and there is no ground to interfere with the impugned

order, appeal is dismissed.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) harleen/MD

3 of 3 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1939 of 2025