In the matter of MARVELOUS METALS PVT LTD

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL COURT ROOM NO. 1, MUMBAI BENCH Item No. 8 IA (I.B.C)/3451(MB)2025 IA(IBC)(LIQ.)/ 53(MB)2025 IN C.P.(IB)/645(MB)2024 CORAM: SH. PRABHAT KUMAR SH. SUSHIL MAHADEORAO KOCHEY HON’BLE MEMBER (TECHNICAL) HON’BLE MEMBER (JUDICIAL) ORDER SHEET OF THE HEARING ON 04.08.2025 NAME OF THE PARTIES: STATE BANK OF INDIA VS MARVELOUS METALS PVT LTD Section 7, 17, 18, 20 & 25 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ORDER Adv. Nikita Abhyankar for the Applicant in both IA is present. IA (I.B.C)/3451(MB)2025 1. This Application has been filed by Resolution Professional under Regulation 15 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Board of India (Liquidation Process) Regulation 2016 r/w Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 to place on record the updated list of creditors. The same is taken on record. 2. In view of above, the IA (I.B.C)/3451(MB)2025 is allowed and disposed of. IA(IBC)(LIQ.)/ 53(MB)2025 1) This is an Interlocutory Application filed by the Resolution Professional (Deemed) Atul Rajwadkar under Section 33(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (the Code) for initiating Liquidation Process against M/s Marvelous Metals Pvt. Ltd. (Corporate Debtor).

2) The facts leading to the case in hand are as follows: a. Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) of the Corporate Debtor was initiated by this Tribunal vide order dated 13.12.2024 upon admission of a Company Petition under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (the Code) and the Applicant herein was appointed as the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) of the Corporate Debtor qua the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process of the Corporate Debtor. b. The Applicant further states that Form G was issued on or about April 14, 2025 and pursuant thereto the Resolution Professional received about 27 enquiries from prospective Resolution Applicants. However, as on the last date of submission of the expression of interests (“EOI”), none of the applicants submitted any plan. c. With an effort to attract prospective Resolution Applicants, the CoC agreed to liberalize the eligibility criteria for prospective Resolution Applicants and accordingly issued a revised Form G on May 10, 2025. Even then no EOIs were received as on the last date of submission thereof. d. The CoC was informed of the same at the time of the Seventh Meeting of the CoC conducted on June 9, 2025. Consequently, the CoC resolved to proceed for liquidation of the Corporate Debtor by 100% majority. 3) To buttress his argument, the Applicant submits that this Bench is vested with the powers to pass an order of Liquidation of the Corporate Debtor; since, no Resolution Plan could be brought forth and voted for and in the absence of any Resolution Plan on the table, the order of liquidation shall be passed by this Adjudicating Authority under section 33 of the Code, which reads as under:

“(1) Where the Adjudicating Authority, — (a) before the expiry of the insolvency resolution process period or the maximum period permitted for completion of the corporate insolvency resolution process under section 12 or the fast track corporate insolvency resolution process under section 56, as the case may be, does not receive a resolution plan under sub-section (6) of section 30; or (b) rejects the resolution plan under section 31 for the non-compliance of the requirements specified therein, it shall— (i) pass an order requiring the corporate debtor to be liquidated in the manner as laid down in this Chapter; (ii) issue a public announcement stating that the corporate debtor is in liquidation; and (iii) require such order to be sent to the authority with which the corporate debtor is registered. (2) Where the resolution professional, at any time during the corporate insolvency resolution process but before confirmation of resolution plan, intimates the Adjudicating Authority of the decision of the committee of creditors to liquidate the corporate debtor, the Adjudicating Authority shall pass a liquidation order as referred to in sub-clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) of clause (b) of sub-section (1)”. 4) Further, the COC members did not approve a liquidation plan pursuant to regulation 39B of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (CIRP regulations), 2016 wherein the CoC was required to decide on the manner in which the liquidation costs should be funded. The CoC, which is being formed of the Operational Creditors, did not decide to contribute to the liquidation costs. 5) It would further appear that the members of CoC does not want to proceed in the matter of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process of M/s Marvelous Metals Pvt. Ltd. in accordance with provisions of the IBC, 2016. 6) Further, the CoC in their meeting also passed Resolution to initiate liquidation proceeding against the Corporate Debtor and to appoint the existing Resolution Professional to be acted as the Liquidator of the Corporate Debtor. The recitals of the relevant resolutions are as under:

7) In view of aforesaid, this Tribunal is left with no option except to pass an order for Liquidation of the Company in the manner laid down in Chapter III of the Code considering the fact there is no Resolution Plan for consideration and CoC does not foresee any possibility of getting Plans in another round also. Accordingly, the Corporate Debtor is ordered to be liquidated and following consequential order is passed. a. The Application IA(IBC)(LIQ.)/53(MB)2025 is allowed. The Corporate Debtor, M/s. Marvelous Metals Pvt. Ltd., shall be liquidated in the manner as laid down in Chapter-III of the Code. b. Mr. Atul Rajwadkar having Registration No. IBBI/IPA-001/IP- P00152/2017-18/10321 is appointed as Liquidator of M/s. Marvelous Metals Pvt. Ltd. c. That the Liquidator for conduct of the Liquidation proceedings would be entitled to the fees as provided in Regulation 4(2)(b) of the IBBI (Liquidation Process Regulations), 2016. d. The Moratorium declared under Section 14 of the IBC 2016 shall cease to operate here from.

e. Liquidator shall issue public announcement stating that Corporate Debtor is in liquidation. f. The Liquidator shall endeavour to sale the Company as a going concern during the liquidation in terms of Regulation 32A of the Liquidation Process Regulations. In case he is not able to do so within a period of 90 days from this date, he shall proceed in accordance with clauses (a) to (d) of Regulation 32 of the Liquidation Process Regulations. g. Subject to Section 52 of the Code no suit or other legal proceedings shall be instituted by or against the Corporate Debtor. This shall however not apply to legal proceedings in relation to such transactions as may be notified by the Central Government in consultation with any financial sector regulator. h. All powers of the Board of Directors, Key Managerial Personnel and partners of the Corporate Debtor shall cease to have effect and shall be vested in the Liquidator. i. The Liquidator shall exercise the powers and perform duties as envisaged under Sections 35 to 50 and 52 to 54 of the Code read with the Liquidation Process Regulations. j. Personnel connected with the Corporate Debtor shall extend all assistance and cooperation to the Liquidator as will be required for managing its affairs. k. This Order shall be deemed to be a notice of discharge to the officers, employees and workmen of the Corporate Debtor, except when the business of the Corporate Debtor is continued during the liquidation process by the Liquidator. l. The Liquidator shall submit progress reports as per Regulation 15 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016.

m. The Liquidator is hereby Authorized to represent the Corporate Debtor before the Government Authorities, if need be. n. Registry shall furnish a copy of this Order to the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India, New Delhi; Regional Director (Western Region), Ministry of Corporate Affairs; Registrar of Companies & Official Liquidator, Maharashtra; the Registered Office of the Corporate Debtor; and the Liquidator, Mr. Atul Rajwadkar, having E-mail ip. vervecapital@gmail.com. Sd/- Sd/- PRABHAT KUMAR SUSHIL MAHADEORAO KOCHEY MEMBER (TECHNICAL) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Shubham Bide

BEFORE THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO. OF 2025 IN COMPANY PETITION NO. 645 OF 2024 (Under Ri le 154 of the National Company Law Rules, 2016) Resolution Professional ...Applicant Atul Rajwadkar IN THE MATTER OF: ...Financial Creditor State Bank of India Versus Marvelous Metals Pvt. Ltd. ...Corporate Debtor INDEX Sr. Exhibits Particulars Page Nos. No. 1. Ilemo of parties 1 2. Synopsis and List of dates 2 3. I.pplication for speaking to the minutes 3 - 9 4. A. (!opy of the said Order dated August 4, 2025. 10 - 16 5. B. (!opy of the seventh meetingof the CoC held on 17 - 33 (9.06.2025. 6. Arakalatnama 34

Date: August 08, 2025 Place: Nagpur Gravitas Legal Advocates for the Applicant MAH/4540/2018

ATUL RAJWADKAR V \ gV INSOLVENCYPROFESSIONAL \ RegistrationNo:IBBI/IPA-001/ \ IP-P00152/2017-18/10321

BEFORE THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH INTERLOCJUTORY APPLICATION NO. OF 2025 IN C<DMPANY PETITION NO. 645 OF 2024 (Under Rilie 154 of the National Company Law Rules, 2016) Resolution Professi<>nal ...Applicant Atul Rajwadkar IN THE MATTER OF ...Financial Creditor State Bank of India Versus Marvelous Metals Plrt. Ltd. ...Corporate Debtor

MEMO OF PARTIES Resolution Professional Atul Rajwadkar Applicant Plot No 47, Hindusthan Colony, Wardha Road, Nagpur - 440015 cirp.marvelousthresurgentrpl.com

Gravitas Legal Advocates for the Applicant 205, 2nd Floor, 58/64, Hari Chambers, Opp. Old Custom House, Fort, Mumbai- 400023 likita.abhyankaragravitaslegal.co.in ] 9833789241 MAH/4540/2018

Date: August 8, 2025 Place: Nagpur Gravitas Legal Advocate for the Applicant

* UL ^^DRAR rn^olvency professional IBB^PA-00I/ JP-P00152/2017-18/10321

BEFORE THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO. OF 2025 IN COMPANY PETITION NO. 645 OF 2024 (Under Ri le 154 of the National Company Law Rules, 2016) Resolution Professional ...Applicant Atul Rajwadkar IN THE MATTER OF: State Bank of India ...Financial Creditor Versus Marvelous Metals Pvt. Ltd. ...Corporate Debtor SYNOPSIS The Present Applicat on is preferred by the Applicant seeking correction in the Order dated August 4, 2025 passed by this HonT)le Tribunal in IA No. 53 of 2025. Hence this Apj lication.

LIST OF DATES

Date Particulars December Comp my Petition was admitted and Corporate Debtor is 13, 2024 subjec ted to Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process.

June 12, Liquication Application was filed. 2024 August 4, Advocite for Applicant was present and submitted the facts in 2025 relaticn to the Application and the Liquidation Application was allowed vide an order dated 04.08.25. August 6, The C rder dated August 4, 2025 allowing liquidation of the 2025 Corpo Debtor was madeavailable, upon perusal of thesame, it appears that certain inadvertent errors not relating to the preseiit matter have crept in. Hence the present Application.

Date: August 8,202 > Place: Nagpur ^-"Gravitas Legal Advocates for the Applicant

ATUL RAJWADKAR INSOLVENCYPROFESSIONAL RegistrationNo:IBBI/IPA-001/ IP-POO152/2017-18/10321

BEFORE THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO. OF 2025 IN COMPANY PETITION NO. 645 OF 2024 (Under R lie 154 of the National Company Law Rules, 2016) Resolution Professianal Atul Rajwadkar ...Applicant IN THE MATTER O1 State Bank of India ...Financial Creditor Versus Marvelous Metals Pvt. Ltd. ...Corporate Debtor APPLICATION FDR SPEAKING TO MINUTES OF THE ORDER DATED - AUGUST I, 2025 UNDER RULE 154 OF THE NATIONAL C<)MPANY LAW TRIBUNAL RULES, 2016

MOST RESPECTFU1 LY SHEWETH:

1. The Present Application is preferred by the Applicant seeking for correction in tlie order dated 04.06.25 passed by this Hon’ble Tribunal in IA No. 53 of 2C 25.

2. The Applicant s appointed as the Liquidator of the Corporate Debtor vide an order dated 04.08.2025 passed by this Hon’ble Tribunal in IA No. 53of 2025.

3. The Interlocut ary Application No. 53 of 2025. was placed before this Hon’ble Tribur al on 04.08.25 wherein this Hon’ble Tribunal was pleased to allow this application and initiated liquidation proceedings qua the i Corporate Debtor. Hereto annexed and marked as the Exhibit “A” is the copy of the orc er date 04.08.25. Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit “B” is a copy >f the minutes of the seventh meeting of the CoC held on 09.06.2025.

4. The order dab d 04.08.25 of the Hon’ble Tribunal was uploaded on or about 06.08.2i i. Upon perusal of the said order the applicant states that there are certa n errors in the said order which are as below:

ATUL RAJWADKAR INSOLVENCYPROFESSIONAL Registration No:IBBI/IPA-001/ IP-P00152/2017-18/10321

Clarification Para & Error Page number of the Order Page 2 Corporate Insolvency Resolution Corporate Insolvency Resolution Para 2a. Process (Cl ?P) of the Corporate Process (CIRP) of the Corporate Debtor was vitiated by this Tribunal Debtor was initiated by this vide order lated 13.12.2024 upon Tribunal vide order dated admission c f a Company Petition 13.12.2024 upon admission of a under Section 9 of the Insolvency Company Petition under Section and Bankniptcy Code, 2016 (the 7 of the Insolvency and Code) and th e Applicant herein was Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (the appointed as the Interim Code) and Mr. Anuj Bajpai was Resolution ^ofessional (IRP) of the appointed as the Interim Corporate D;btor qua the Corporate Resolution Professional (IRP) of Insolvency F esolution Process of the the Corporate Debtor qua the Corporate D ibtor Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process of the Corporate Debtor. Subsequently, vide an Order dated 04.04.2025 the Applicant herein was appointed as the Resolution Professional of the Corporate Debtor.

Page3&4 4) Further, the COC members did The details referred to in para 4 not approxre a liquidation plan of the Order are not pertaining to Para 4 & pursuant 1o regulation 39B of the facts of the present matter. para 5 Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board CoC was constituted comprising of India (C[RP regulations), 2016 of Financial Creditors and wherein th: CoC was required to whereas the Financial Creditors decide on t le manner in which the approved liquidation of the liquidation costs should be funded. Corporate Debtor by 100% The CoC, which is being formed of majority in its seventh meeting the Operat:onal Creditors, did not held on 09.06.2025. decide to contribute to the liquidation costs. (Re: pg 152 of Application and corresponding Resolution passed @pg 157 of the Application). v \A ATULRAJWADKAR INSOLVENCYPROFESSIONAL RegistrationNo:IBBI/IPA-001/ IP-P00152/2017-18/10321

Clarification Para & Error Page number of the Order 5) It would urther appear that the Further, the CoC did approve the members of CoC does not want to Liquidation Cost Estimate; proceed in the matter of Corporate however, did not put up any plan Insolvency Resolution Process of for funding of the said Liquidation M/s Marvel >us Metals Pvt. Ltd. in Cost. The same will be dealt with accordance with provisions of the the Stakeholders Consultation IBC, 2016. Committee as per the relevant Liquidation Regulations. Page 5 That the Liqilidator for conduct of the Fee structure of the Liquidator Para 7c Liquidation proceedings would be was decided during the seventh entitled to 1he fees as provided in meeting of CoC. Para therefore Regulation 4(2)(b) of the IBBI may be as follows: (Liquidatioi Process Regulations), 2016 That the Liquidator for conduct of the Liquidation proceedings would be entitled to the fees as confirmed by the CoC in its seventh meeting held on 09.06.2025. (Re: Agenda Item No. B(2), second paragraph thereunder@pg 153) Page 6 The Liquids tor shall endeavour to In the CoC meeting Para 7(1) sale the Cor ipany as a going concern on 09.06.2025, the RP had during the liquidation in terms of indicated that sale as a going Regulation 32A of the Liquidation concern appeared unlikely due to Process Reg ilations. In case he is not absence of ongoing operations able to do :o within a period of 90 and prior lack of interest during days from tl is date, he shall proceed CIRP. The CoC discussed to in accordant e with clauses (a) to (d) of explore sale of assets collectively Regulation 32 of the Liquidation or in parts to maximize Process Reg ilations. realization. Thus, the CoC has not decided to sale the Corporate Debtor as a going concern as per the ATUL RAJWADK LR discussions of the CoC Meeting INSOLVENCYPROFES! ONAL Regis[rationNo:IBBI/I A-001/ held on 09.06.2025. 3321

5. In view of the a Dove the Applicant humbly prays as under: a. Allow the pr;sent Application; b. Modify the Drder in terms of detail and clarification provided in the table under para 4 of the present Application; c. For any othi:r and further order as this Honlile Tribunal may deem fit.

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE APPLICANT FOREVER PRAYS. \ Dated this 08th day o'August, 2025 At Nagpur v $5^ Atul RajWadkar Applicant ;as Legal Advocates for the Applicant ATUL RAJWADKAR 205, 2nd Floor, SS/O^ , Hari Chambers, INSOLVENCYPROFESSIONAL Opp. Old Custom Hoase, Fort, Registration No:IBBI/IPA-001/ IP-P00152/2017-18/10321 Mumbai-400023 nikita.abhyankaru£ravitaslegal.co.in 9833789241 MAH/4540/2018

NOTARIALREG. ENTRY NO. CHALLAN — oS-log^oi< 7 DATE: MTRFormNumber-6 GRN MH006836508202526U BARCODE IIIlliIIIlllllllIlli11millHUHillllllllllIIII Date 08/08/2025-13:02:25 FormID Department InspectorGeneralOfRegiration PayerDetails Non-JudicialStamps TAXID/TAN(IfAny) TypeofPayment GeneralStampsSoSMumbaionly PANNo.(lfApplicable) f| OfficeName AOM_SBRANDADMOF MUMBAICITY FullName ATULRAJWADKAR Location MUMBAI Year 2025-2026 OneTime FlaVBIockNo. AccountHeadDetails AmountInRs. Premises/Building 0030056201-GeneralStamps 100.00 Road/Street 'OT— Area/Locality * 7X \\ 77^' /.77^7 \ Town/City/District PIN \ 7^™-7./ Remarks(IfAny) NCLTMUMBAIFILING

AmountIn OneHundredRupeesOnly Total 100.00 Words PaymentDetails STATEBANKOFINDIA FORUSEINRECEIVINGBANK Cheque-DDDetails BankGIN Ref.No. 00040572025080814166 CPAFMEZCU2 Cheque/DDNo. BankDate RBIDate 08/08/2025-13:24:03 NotVerifiedwithRBI NameofBank Bank-Branch STATEBANKOFINDIA NameofBranch ScrollNo.,Date NotVerifiedwithScroll DepartmentID: I MobileNo.: 7038008866 NOTE:-ThischallanisvalidfordocumenttoberegisteredinSubRegistrarofficeonly..Notvalidforunregistereddocument. sfRjnft <*Yldeilr«yi cTia] Sin? eifeuft Ff cbVJd^Icyi rW-cihMlJl T-RFC ER-H cTIHl

Page1/1 PrintDate08-08-202501:03:22

BEFORE THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH INTERLOC UTORY APPLICATION NO. OF 2025 IN COMPANY PETITION NO. 645 OF 2024 (Under Section 18(b of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 read with Regulation 13(2) of the Insolvency 8s Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016) Resolution Professional Atul Rajwadkar ...Applicant IN THE MATTER OF: State Bank of India ...Financial Creditor Versus Marvelous Metals Prt. Ltd. ...Corporate Debtor AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT I, Atul ] wadkar, Applicant abovenamed, having address at Plot No 47, Hi sthan Colony, Wardha Road, Nagpur - 440 015 do hereby state and declare as under: - l.That I have filed the present Application for the reliefs and prayers more particularly set )Ut in the Application.

2.1 repeat, reiteraie, and adopt all the contentions and the averments and statements mad;by me in the said Application and the same maybedeemed to be forming pg rt of the present Application. 3. In view of the above, I pray that the said be made absolute in terms mentioned then in.

Solemnly declared a Nagpur On this 08th day of August, 2025 Identified by me Atul Rajwadkar Applicant

Advocate for the Applicant 205, 2nd Floor, 58/ >4, Hari Chambers, Opp. Old Custom House, Fort, Mumbai - 400023 9833789241 MAH/4540/2018

VERIFICATION I, Atul Rajwadkar, the Applicant abovenamed, having address at Plot No 47, Hindusthan Colony, V ardha Road, Nagpur - 440 015 do hereby solemnly state and declare that whatever is stated in the foregoing paragraph nos. 1 to 6 is true and correct to the bes of my knowledge and belief and I believe the same to be true.

Solemnly declared at agpur On this 08th day of Au;;ust, 2025 Identified by me Atul Rajwadkar Applicant for the Ap ilicant Floor, 58/64, dari Chambers, Opp. Old Custom Hou; e, Fort, Mumbai - 400023 nikita.abhyankaragn vitaslegal.co.in 9833789241 MAH/4540/2018

EXHIBIT "A" COURT ROOM NO. 1, MUMBAI BENCH Item No. 8 IA (I.B.C)/3451(MB)2025 IA(IBC)(LIQ.)/ 53(MB)2025 IN C.P.(IB)/645(MB)2024 CORAM: SH. PRABHAT KUMAR SH. SUSHIL MAHADEORAO KOCHEY HON’BLE MEMBER (TECHNICAL) HON’BLE MEMBER (JUDICIAL) ORDER SHEET OF THE HEARING ON 04.08.2025 NAME OF THE PARTIES: STATE BANK OF INDIA VS MARVELOUS METALS PVT LTD Section 7, 17, 18, 20 & 25 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ORDER Adv. Nikita Abhyankar for the Applicant in both IA is present. IA (I.B.C)/3451(MB)2025 1. This Application has been filed by Resolution Professional under Regulation 15 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Board of India (Liquidation Process) Regulation 2016 r/w Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 to place on record the updated list of creditors. The same is taken on record. 2. In view of above, the IA (I.B.C)/3451(MB)2025 is allowed and disposed of. IA(IBC)(LIQ.)/ 53(MB)2025 1) This is an Interlocutory Application filed by the Resolution Professional (Deemed) Atul Rajwadkar under Section 33(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (the Code) for initiating Liquidation Process against M/s Marvelous Metals Pvt. Ltd. (Corporate Debtor).

TRUE COPY

2) The facts leading to the case in hand are as follows: a. Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) of the Corporate Debtor was initiated by this Tribunal vide order dated 13.12.2024 upon admission of a Company Petition under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (the Code) and the Applicant herein was appointed as the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) of the Corporate Debtor qua the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process of the Corporate Debtor. b. The Applicant further states that Form G was issued on or about April 14, 2025 and pursuant thereto the Resolution Professional received about 27 enquiries from prospective Resolution Applicants. However, as on the last date of submission of the expression of interests (“EOI”), none of the applicants submitted any plan. c. With an effort to attract prospective Resolution Applicants, the CoC agreed to liberalize the eligibility criteria for prospective Resolution Applicants and accordingly issued a revised Form G on May 10, 2025. Even then no EOIs were received as on the last date of submission thereof. d. The CoC was informed of the same at the time of the Seventh Meeting of the CoC conducted on June 9, 2025. Consequently, the CoC resolved to proceed for liquidation of the Corporate Debtor by 100% majority. 3) To buttress his argument, the Applicant submits that this Bench is vested with the powers to pass an order of Liquidation of the Corporate Debtor; since, no Resolution Plan could be brought forth and voted for and in the absence of any Resolution Plan on the table, the order of liquidation shall be passed by this Adjudicating Authority under section 33 of the Code, which reads as under:

TRUE COPY “(1) Where the Adjudicating Authority, — (a) before the expiry of the insolvency resolution process period or the maximum period permitted for completion of the corporate insolvency resolution process under section 12 or the fast track corporate insolvency resolution process under section 56, as the case may be, does not receive a resolution plan under sub-section (6) of section 30; or (b) rejects the resolution plan under section 31 for the non-compliance of the requirements specified therein, it shall— (i) pass an order requiring the corporate debtor to be liquidated in the manner as laid down in this Chapter; (ii) issue a public announcement stating that the corporate debtor is in liquidation; and (iii) require such order to be sent to the authority with which the corporate debtor is registered. (2) Where the resolution professional, at any time during the corporate insolvency resolution process but before confirmation of resolution plan, intimates the Adjudicating Authority of the decision of the committee of creditors to liquidate the corporate debtor, the Adjudicating Authority shall pass a liquidation order as referred to in sub-clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) of clause (b) of sub-section (1)”.

4) Further, the COC members did not approve a liquidation plan pursuant to regulation 39B of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (CIRP regulations), 2016 wherein the CoC was required to decide on the manner in which the liquidation costs should be funded. The CoC, which is being TRUE COPY formed of the Operational Creditors, did not decide to contribute to the liquidation costs. 5) It would further appear that the members of CoC does not want to proceed in the matter of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process of M/s Marvelous Metals Pvt. Ltd. in accordance with provisions of the IBC, 2016. 6) Further, the CoC in their meeting also passed Resolution to initiate liquidation proceeding against the Corporate Debtor and to appoint the existing Resolution Professional to be acted as the Liquidator of the Corporate Debtor. The recitals of the relevant resolutions are as under: Resolution1- "ResolvedthattheResolutionProfessionalbeallowedtofileanapplicationunderSection33ofthe InsolvencyandBankruptcyCode,2016,forinitiationofliquidationproceedingsofMarvelousMetals Pvt.Ltd.,beforetheHon'bleNCLT."

TheCOCtooknoteofthematter andapprovedtheresolutionwith100%votes. II. AgendaItemno.8(2| ToappointtheexistingResolutionProfessionalastheLiquidator. In view of the decision to initiate liquidation proceedings under Section 33 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code,theResolutionProfessionalinformedtheCoCthat,asperSection34oftheCode,a liquidator is required to be appointed. The Resolution Professional, being eligible to act as the LiquidatorprovidedhisconsenttoactastheLiquidatorinmatteroftheCorporateDebtor(asAnnexure Ftothenoticeofthepresentmeeting),subjecttotheapprovalof theCoC,ortheCoCmaychoose to appointanothereligibleprofessionalastheliquidator. The RP further informed the CoC that, until the liquidation application is admitted by the Hon'ble AdjudicatingAuthority,heisrequiredtocontinuedischarginghisdutiesasResolutionProfessional.For this interim period—from the date of filing the liquidation application until its admission—the RP offeredtorenderhisservicesatareducedfee,amountingto80%ofhisexistingmonthlyremuneration. The CoCmembersconsented for theappointment ofRP as liquidator andthe feesof RPduringthe interimperiod.

TRUE COPY

The Consent Form of the Resolution Professional to act as the Liquidator is attached herewith as AnnexureFfortheperusaloftheCoC. Thefollowingresolutionwaspassedforthisagenda: Resolution2- "ResolvedthattheexistingResolutionProfessionalbeappointedastheLiquidatorfortheCorporate Debtor." Resolution3- "Resolved that the Resolution Professional shallcontinue to manage the affairs of the Corporate DebtoraftertheexpiryofCorporateInsolvencyResolutionProcess(CIRP)untilanorderappointing the Liquidator under section 34 is passed by the Adjudicating Authority at 80% of the current monthlyfeeoftheResolutionProfessional." TheCOCtooknoteofthematterandapprovedtheresolutionwith100%votes.

7) In view of aforesaid, this Tribunal is left with no option except to pass an order for Liquidation of the Company in the manner laid down in Chapter III of the Code considering the fact there is no Resolution Plan for consideration and CoC does not foresee any possibility of getting Plans in another round also. Accordingly, the Corporate Debtor is ordered to be liquidated and following consequential order is passed. a. The Application IA(IBC)(LIQ.)/53(MB)2025 is allowed. The Corporate Debtor, M/s. Marvelous Metals Pvt. Ltd., shall be liquidated in the manner as laid down in Chapter-III of the Code. b. Mr. Atul Rajwadkar having Registration No. IBBI/IPA-001/IP- P00152/2017-18/10321 is appointed as Liquidator of M/s. Marvelous Metals Pvt. Ltd. c. That the Liquidator for conduct of the Liquidation proceedings would be entitled to the fees as provided in Regulation 4(2)(b) of the IBBI (Liquidation Process Regulations), 2016. d. The Moratorium declared under Section 14 of the IBC 2016 shall cease to operate here from.

TRUE COPY e. Liquidator shall issue public announcement stating that Corporate Debtor is in liquidation. f. The Liquidator shall endeavour to sale the Company as a going concern during the liquidation in terms of Regulation 32A of the Liquidation Process Regulations. In case he is not able to do so within a period of 90 days from this date, he shall proceed in accordance with clauses (a) to (d) of Regulation 32 of the Liquidation Process Regulations. g. Subject to Section 52 of the Code no suit or other legal proceedings shall be instituted by or against the Corporate Debtor. This shall however not apply to legal proceedings in relation to such transactions as may be notified by the Central Government in consultation with any financial sector regulator. h. All powers of the Board of Directors, Key Managerial Personnel and partners of the Corporate Debtor shall cease to have effect and shall be vested in the Liquidator. i. The Liquidator shall exercise the powers and perform duties as envisaged under Sections 35 to 50 and 52 to 54 of the Code read with the Liquidation Process Regulations. j. Personnel connected with the Corporate Debtor shall extend all assistance and cooperation to the Liquidator as will be required for managing its affairs. k. This Order shall be deemed to be a notice of discharge to the officers, employees and workmen of the Corporate Debtor, except when the business of the Corporate Debtor is continued during the liquidation process by the Liquidator. l. The Liquidator shall submit progress reports as per Regulation 15 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016.

TRUE COPY m. The Liquidator is hereby Authorized to represent the Corporate Debtor before the Government Authorities, if need be. n. Registry shall furnish a copy of this Order to the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India, New Delhi; Regional Director (Western Region), Ministry of Corporate Affairs; Registrar of Companies & Official Liquidator, Maharashtra; the Registered Office of the Corporate Debtor; and the Liquidator, Mr. Atul Rajwadkar, having E-mail ip. vervecapital@gmail.com. Sd/- Sd/- PRABHAT KUMAR SUSHIL MAHADEORAO KOCHEY MEMBER (TECHNICAL) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Shubham Bide

TRUE COPY

EXHIBIT "B" CA Atul Rajwadkar Insolvency Professional Registration No: IBBI/IPA-001/IP-P00152/2017-18/10321

MARVELOUS METALS PVT. LTD. 7th COC Meeting held on 09th June, 2025 through Video Conference at Nagpur at 11:00 AM Attendance: Financial Creditor: Sr no. Bank Name Attendee Name Designation 1. State Bank of India Mohammad Rashid Khan Assistant General Manager Uday Kiran B Chief Manager 2. Bank of Baroda Rajendra Sandera Chief Manager

RP Team: CA Atul Rajwadkar, RP CA Swarada Sagdeo CS Kiran Waghwani

Directors with Suspended Powers: Absent

Valuers: as & when they were permitted to join the meeting Sr no. Valuer Name Class of Assets 1. Mr. Parag Sheth Land & Building 2. Miss. Monica Mota Land & Building 3. Mr. Lionel Azavedo Plant & Machinery 4. Mr. Vipul Rajpara Plant & Machinery 5. Mr. Yatin Shah Securities and Financial Assets

TRUE COPY

CA Atul Rajwadkar Insolvency Professional Registration No: IBBI/IPA-001/IP-P00152/2017-18/10321

The Seventh meeting of Committee of Creditors (CoC) of Marvelous Metals Pvt. Ltd. (the Corporate Debtor – CD) took place through Video Conferencing Mode at Nagpur on 9th June, 2025. The meeting started at 11.45 AM and ended at around 12.45 PM. The minutes of the meeting are as under: AGENDA ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION I. Agenda Item no. A (1) The Resolution Professional to take the Chair In accordance with regulation 24 of ‘Insolvency & Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulation, 2016’, the Resolution Professional acted as the Chairperson of the meeting of Committee of Creditors. II. Agenda Item no. A (2) To ascertain the Quorum of the Meeting As per Regulation 22(1) of the “Insolvency & Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulation, 2016”, a meeting of the Committee shall quorate if members of the committee representing at least thirty three percent of the voting rights are present either in person or by video conferencing or other audio and visual means. The meeting was attended by all the members of the CoC.

Hence, after taking a roll call during the meeting, the Chairman confirmed that the Quorum of the meeting was 100%. III. Agenda Item no. A (3) To take on record the Minutes of the Last CoC Meeting which had been circulated to the members of the CoC Minutes of the Sixth CoC meeting had been circulated with the members of CoC. No observations had been received after the circulation of minutes. RP asked the CoC for their observations, if any. No observations were noted. The minutes were taken on record. IV. Agenda Item no. A (4) To update the CoC members about Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process of the Corporate Debtor. • Update on CIRP cost as on the date of Notice: The Resolution Professional informed that, total CIRP costs (incurred from commencement of CIRP up to the date of issuance of notice of the meeting) of ₹17,18,748/- has been expended. Detailed breakup of the CIRP cost was provided to the members of the COC in Annexure A to the Notice. The Resolution professional informed the COC that legal cost will be incurred in the event of filing necessary application with the Hon’ble NCLT.

The RP invited comments from the CoC members on the above costs and requested ratification in the absence of any objections. The CoC members duly noted the update and ratified the CIRP costs incurred till date.

TRUE COPY

CA Atul Rajwadkar Insolvency Professional Registration No: IBBI/IPA-001/IP-P00152/2017-18/10321

A detailed list of CIRP Cost from the Insolvency Commencement Date to 03.06.2025 as approved by the members of the CoC is attached herewith as Annexure A. • Regarding Invitation of Expression of Interest (EoI): The RP informed that as per Form G published on 10.05.2025 (for the second time) in Economic Times (English) – Pune & Kolhapur, The Free Press Journal (English) - Mumbai and Pudhari (Marathi) - Kolhapur, the last date of receipt of Expression of Interest (EoI) was 25.05.2025. In this regard, 27 enquiries were received for submission of Expression of Interest (EoIs) by the RP. The RP further stated that the list of enquiries received from the previous publication of Form G and the latest one were shared with the COC as Annexure B to the Notice. Mr. Uday Kiran B, representative of State Bank of India, enquired whether any of the enquiries had materialized into an Expression of Interest. The Resolution Professional informed the CoC that no entity had submitted an Expression of Interest for the Corporate Debtor. The CoC members duly noted the same. The enquiries received by the Resolution Professional, in response to the Form G dated 14.04.2025 and Form G dated 10.05.2025, as discussed in the meeting are attached herewith as Annexure B. • Update regarding PUFE application: The RP informed the CoC, that, as discussed in the earlier meetings, M/s. J.M.

Associates (Mr. Lalit Dave - Partner) had been appointed as the Transaction Auditor and has since submitted the Transaction Audit Report. The RP further clarified that the auditor did not receive the necessary data during the tenure of the erstwhile IRP, which resulted in a delay in the completion of the audit. Consequently, the timeline for filing the PUFE application—i.e., within 130 days from the Insolvency Commencement Date (ICD)—has been exceeded. Following the receipt of the report on 05th June, 2025, the Resolution Professional circulated the same to the CoC members for their information, and to the erstwhile management and current directors (with suspended powers) of the Corporate Debtor for their comments. Responses are awaited as of date. The RP informed the CoC members that the below transactions have been identified based on the audited financials for FY 2021-22 which appear to be suspicious in nature– Particulars Amount in Rs. 000’ Creditors written off in Previous financial years written 59,80.00 back in FY 2021-22 Capital Work in Progress 52,131.00 Payment to Ajara Urban Co-op Bank 25,624.85 Advances made to related parties (prior to 2017-18) 924.00 Payments made to related parties (Machining Labor 9915.61 Charges) (for the period FY 2021-22) Interest paid or payable to related parties (for the period 150.33 FY 2021-22) Total 94,725.79 The RP brought to the attention of the CoC that certain transactions were identified as having been made to Account No. 0034884141294 maintained with Ajara Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. These transfers occurred over three financial years—2020-21, 2021-22, and 2022-23.

The RP informed that he has written to the said bank and is currently in the process of verifying whether the Corporate

TRUE COPY

CA Atul Rajwadkar Insolvency Professional Registration No: IBBI/IPA-001/IP-P00152/2017-18/10321

Debtor held an account with Ajara Urban Co-operative Bank. However, no response has been received from the bank as yet. Mr Uday Kiran B commented that that it is unlikely that either the bank or the Corporate Debtor would disclose such information. In response, the RP clarified that he has formally informed the bank of his appointment as the Resolution Professional of the Corporate Debtor by order of the Hon’ble NCLT and officially requested for this information. The Resolution Professional further informed that SBI had conducted a Stock and Receivables Audit of the Corporate Debtor and had also prepared a Joint Inspection Report. As per the audited financial statements for the financial year 2021–22, the Corporate Debtor had reported stock worth approximately ₹8.82 crores as of 31st March 2022. Furthermore, the Stock and Receivables Audit conducted by SBI in November 2023 reflected stock valued at ₹7 crores as of 31st May 2023. However, according to the Joint Inspection Report, the management of the Corporate Debtor had indicated that the stock was to be sold and dispatched shortly.

Despite this, the RP noted that no such stock was found at the Corporate Debtor’s factory site. Additionally, there were no corresponding entries in the books of accounts or any bank receipts reflecting proceeds from the sale of the said stock. In view of this, the RP stated that all such matters would also form part of the PUFE transactions. RP stated that he would file the relevant application for such transactions. He further mentioned that such PUFE application will be shared with the CoC once it is finalized. • Claims: The Resolution Professional informed the CoC about status of application for constitution of the Committee of Creditors (CoC). He stated that the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) had filed the said application with the Hon’ble NCLT on 10th January 2025. However, the application was neither listed nor numbered due to certain defects. The said matter recently came to the attention of the RP. After getting to know about the same, the RP sought clarification from the IRP & his lawyer regarding the status of the application. In response, the IRP confirmed that while the application was filed, the legal counsel appointed in this regard would be able to help the Resolution Professional in this matter.

The RP further informed that he is currently in the process of determining the appropriate steps to rectify and regularize the said application in consultation with the lawyer. This matter had already been informed by email to the CoC on 30th May 2025. The Resolution Professional further informed that, as per Regulation 13 of the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as ‘CIRP Regulations’) a separate list of creditors was required to be filed with the Hon’ble NCLT. However, the IRP had included the list of creditors within the same application that was filed for the constitution of the Committee of Creditors. As a result, neither a standalone application for the constitution of the CoC nor a separate list of creditors was properly filed before the Hon’ble NCLT. In response to the same, Mr. Uday Kiran B asked whether the Hon’ble NCLT would accept the application after rectification of defects. The RP explained that he had consulted with legal professionals on the matter and stated that while no precedent cases have come to his attention, the RP remains hopeful that the Hon’ble NCLT will accept the rectified application.

TRUE COPY

CA Atul Rajwadkar Insolvency Professional Registration No: IBBI/IPA-001/IP-P00152/2017-18/10321

The Resolution Professional further informed that both he and the erstwhile IRP have received certain claims from operational creditors, apart from the government dues and the claims of workmen/employees. However, these claims were submitted beyond the prescribed 90-day period from the Insolvency Commencement Date, as stipulated under the CIRP Regulations. The RP stated that he has compiled these claims and requested the respective claimants to provide supporting documents along with a valid reason for the delay in submission. As per the CIRP Regulations, it is mandatory for claimants to furnish an explanation when claims are filed after the 90-day period. He further explained that such delayed claims must be verified and presented before the CoC for their consideration and approval. However, the RP noted that, as of now, no reasons for the delay have been received from the claimants. Furthermore, the erstwhile IRP had previously received a consolidated claim form on behalf of 127 employees/workmen through the Unit President of the Employee Union, along with 10 individual claims submitted separately by certain employees.

These claims had initially been classified as “Under Verification” by the IRP. During his tenure, the RP reviewed these claims and issued communications to the claimants highlighting discrepancies observed during the verification process. Subsequently, on 28.05.2025, the RP received revised claim forms from the 127 employees individually, which were earlier filed by the Unit President. These revised claims were submitted in multiple tranches, with the final set received on 04.06.2025. The RP, vide email dated 06th June, 2025, informed the concerned employees/workmen that these submissions will be treated as fresh claims, and the earlier consolidated claim will be disregarded. The RP is currently in the process of verifying the revised claims. Upon this, Mr. Uday Kiran B enquired about the timeline of filing of claim. The RP replied that the timeline for filing the claims was 90 days from the Insolvency Commencement Date. While claims received beyond this period will still be verified, their inclusion in the list of creditors is subject to the provisions of the Code. The RP further mentioned that he has not yet made a decision on the admission of these claims, as he is still awaiting the additional information requested from the claimants.

Mr. Uday Kiran B further inquired whether any provisioning needs to be made in respect of the aforementioned claims. The Resolution Professional clarified that no provision as such is required at the moment, and that he was merely updating the CoC members about the receipt of these claims. The CoC member enquired about the total amount of claim received of the employees/workmen. The RP referred to Annexure C of the notice and informed that the total amount of claims filed by operational creditors (other than Government Dues, Employees and Workmen) after the 90-day period from the Insolvency Commencement Date amounted to ₹99,80,365.77/-. Additionally, the total amount of claims filed individually by 20 workmen/employees who have filed claims after the 90-days period is ₹20,91,152/- Cumulatively, the RP has received claims from 149 employees/workmen amounting to ₹15,18,20,607/-. These claims are up to the date of issuance of notice of the meeting and the RP is in the process of verifying these claims. The list of claims received after 90th day from the Insolvency Commencement Date from Operational Creditors (being Employees & Workmen) and Operational Creditors (other than Government Dues, Employees and Workmen) is attached herewith as Annexure C. A category-wise summary of claims received from the Insolvency Commencement Date to 06th June, 2025 is attached herewith as Annexure D.

TRUE COPY

CA Atul Rajwadkar Insolvency Professional Registration No: IBBI/IPA-001/IP-P00152/2017-18/10321

V. Agenda Item no. A (5) To discuss the valuation methodology adopted by the valuers for valuation of assets of corporate debtor. The RP informed the CoC members that as per the Proviso to Regulation 35 of “Insolvency & Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulation, 2016” (hereinafter referred to as CIRP Regulations) inserted by Notification No. IBBI/2023-24/GN/REG113, dated 15th February, 2024, …... “that the resolution professional shall facilitate a meeting wherein registered valuers shall explain the methodology being adopted to arrive at valuation to the members of the committee before computation of estimates”. The Resolution Professional informed the CoC that only the basis and methodology for valuation of assets will be discussed during the meeting and the valuations will not be disclosed. He also stated that the valuers will be invited to discuss the details based on the class of assets for which they have been appointed, that is – i. Land and building; ii. Plant and machinery; and iii. Securities and Financial Assets The Resolution Professional invited the valuers in pair according to the class of assets.

The RP briefed the valuers that they need to explain the methodology followed and basis used in the valuation of land and building and specified that valuations should not be disclosed. Land & Building: Mr. Parag Sheth and Miss. Monica Mota were invited in the meeting. They were introduced to the attendees. Mr. Sheth informed the CoC that there are two primary assets under consideration—land and building. For the land, the self-comparison and market approach has been adopted to determine the fair value. In the case of the building, the Depreciated Replacement Cost (DRC) method was used, considering the structure has been in use for the last 10–15 years. The RP sought clarification from the valuer on whether the valuation of the building was based on the replacement cost or the depreciated cost. The valuer clarified that the depreciated cost has been considered, as the valuation does not follow straight-line depreciation and the cost has varied from the original construction value due to usage over time. Miss Monica Mota informed the CoC members that she has also adopted the self-comparison method for valuing the land, and the Depreciated Replacement Cost (DRC) method for valuing the building.

Upon the RP’s request to elaborate on the DRC method, she explained that under this approach by determining the age of the building, the applicable depreciation is calculated and deducted from the gross replacement cost. This results in the Depreciated Replacement Cost of a particular asset i.e. building. The RP inquired with the valuers whether the rates per sq. ft. of the three plots would be similar or vary. Ms. Monica Mota responded that the rates depend on the area of each plot, resulting in TRUE COPY

CA Atul Rajwadkar Insolvency Professional Registration No: IBBI/IPA-001/IP-P00152/2017-18/10321 differences in property values. Consequently, the per square foot rates for each plot vary from one another. Mr. Parag further added that each plot has a distinct pedigree, meaning the plots and their respective values are not identical across the three locations. The Resolution professional invited queries from the members of the COC and no queries were raised. The Resolution Professional thanked both the valuers and requested them to log out of the meeting. Plant & Machinery: The Resolution Professional invited the valuers of Plant & Machinery – Mr. Lionel Azavedo and Mr. Vipul Rajpara and introduced them to the CoC members. The Resolution Professional briefed the valuers that they need to state the methodology followed in the valuation of assets in the meeting and the valuation should not be disclosed. Mr. Azavedo informed the CoC that for the valuation of plant and machinery, he has adopted the Depreciated Replacement Cost (DRC) method under the cost approach, as the market approach is not applicable in the present case.

He explained that for such assets, the base values considered are the Fair Value and the Liquidation Value. The Fair Value has been determined using the premise of existing and current use of the assets, while the Liquidation Value is based on an orderly liquidation scenario. The RP asked Mr. Azavedo to explain in simple terms whether the depreciated value or replacement value had been considered in the valuation. Mr. Azavedo clarified that the process involves three key steps. Firstly, the condition of the asset and the replacement cost. After the depreciated replacement cost is arrived, they account for obsolescence i.e. any technical, functional or economic obsolescence in a particular asset. After accounting for the obsolescence, a fair value is derived. Mr. Vipul Rajpara confirmed that he has also adopted the Depreciated Replacement Cost (DRC) method for valuing the plant and machinery. He explained that the replacement cost of the asset is determined first, and then depreciation is subtracted from this cost to arrive at the fair value of the asset as on date. The RP inquired whether Mr. Rajpara had calculated both the fair value and the liquidation value.

Mr. Rajpara responded that he has calculated both values. The Resolution professional invited queries from the members of the COC and no queries were raised. The Resolution Professional thanked both the valuers and requested them to log out of the meeting. Securities & Financial Assets: The Resolution Professional invited the valuers of Securities & Financial Assets – Mr. Yatin Kumar Shah and Mr. Pinakin Shah, however only Mr. Yatin Kumar Shah logged into the meeting. The Resolution professional introduced Mr. Yatin Kumar Shah to the CoC members. The Resolution Professional briefed the valuer that he needs to state the methodology followed in the valuation of assets in the meeting and the valuation should not be disclosed. Mr. Shah informed the CoC that he had been provided with the latest audited balance sheet for FY 2021–22, and based on the available details, the only asset under valuation was the bank balance. He stated that for adopting any valuation methodology, the actual bank balance would be considered. The TRUE COPY

CA Atul Rajwadkar Insolvency Professional Registration No: IBBI/IPA-001/IP-P00152/2017-18/10321

RP enquired if Mr. Shah had tried to obtain the latest bank statements for more accurate assessment. However, the RP further clarified that the most recent bank statements available with him had already been shared with the valuers, and confirmed that all available details—pertaining to the balance sheet and statements of account—had been provided to them. The RP informed the CoC that he attempted to connect with Mr. Pinakin Shah, the valuer for Securities and Financial Assets of the Corporate Debtor. However, the call could not be established. The RP assured the CoC members that a call with Mr. Shah would be arranged at a later time to discuss the valuation in detail. The Resolution Professional thanked Mr. Yatin Kumar Shah and requested him to log out of the meeting.

TRUE COPY

CA Atul Rajwadkar Insolvency Professional Registration No: IBBI/IPA-001/IP-P00152/2017-18/10321

AGENDA ITEMS FOR VOTING

I. Agenda Item no. B (1) To discuss and approve the filing of Liquidation application by the Resolution Professional in the matter of Marvelous Metals Pvt. Ltd. Resolution professional stated that, as informed earlier, no Expression of Interest were received as on 25.05.2025 (last date of receipt of EoI) by the RP in response to the latest of Form G published on 10.05.2025. He further informed that the CIRP period would conclude on 11.06.2025 without any extension. Accordingly, the CoC would now be required to consider the next course of action, i.e., whether to proceed with liquidation. The Resolution Professional sought the opinion of the CoC members, who unanimously resolved to initiate the liquidation process of the Corporate Debtor under Section 33 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. Based on the decision informed by the CoC to Liquidate the Corporate Debtor, the Resolution Professional informed that, in accordance with the provisions of the CIRP Regulations, the CoC has the option to explore alternate modes of sale during the liquidation process. These include a scheme of compromise or arrangement (C&A) under Section 230 of the Companies Act, 2013. In this regard, a CoC member stated that, at present, there appears to be no likelihood of a compromise or arrangement in respect of the Corporate Debtor.

The Resolution Professional responded that the erstwhile management or others may approach for C&A. If they so approach then C&A can be explored. The CoC member further clarified that, at this point, they do not have such an option. If any proposal for compromise or arrangement arises in the future, the CoC may consider it at that time. The Resolution Professional proceeded to discuss the further course of action—selling the Corporate Debtor as a going concern under the provisions of the CIRP Regulations, which implies that the Corporate Debtor would be sold during the liquidation process as an entity. The RP asked CoC’s opinion about selling the CD as a Going Concern in Liquidation. Representatives from SBI asked whether Going Concern sale is possible considering the response during the CIRP process. The CoC sought inputs from the RP. The Resolution Professional informed that – • the plant and machinery has already been sold, except for certain machines financed by Bank of Baroda. He further said that the Corporate Debtor owns plots at three different locations & not as one parcel. • Additionally, the RP highlighted that the Corporate Debtor has not filed its income tax returns for the last three financial years, and the most recent audited balance sheet available is for FY 2021–22.

He mentioned that it would be necessary to examine and calculate the potential income tax benefits arising from accumulated losses, in the event the company is sold as a going concern. The RP also emphasized the need to verify whether such tax benefits would be applicable under the liquidation process. The Resolution Professional suggested that, the sale of the CD as a going concern may be explored but looks difficult considering that there are no ongoing operations in the Corporate Debtor and the experience during the CIRP process for the reasons stated above. He opined that in the proposed sale process, all three plots owned by the Corporate Debtor should be included as part of the assets in the advertisement for sale. However, in order to maximise realization, these plots may also be offered as separate assets in the auction.

TRUE COPY

CA Atul Rajwadkar Insolvency Professional Registration No: IBBI/IPA-001/IP-P00152/2017-18/10321

The CoC member agreed with the RP’s suggestion and consented to proceed as per the suggestion of the Resolution Professional. Accordingly, the following resolution was passed with voice confirmation during the meeting: Resolution 1 – “Resolved that the Resolution Professional be allowed to file an application under Section 33 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, for initiation of liquidation proceedings of Marvelous Metals Pvt. Ltd., before the Hon’ble NCLT." The COC took note of the matter and approved the resolution with 100% votes.

II. Agenda Item no. B (2) To appoint the existing Resolution Professional as the Liquidator. In view of the decision to initiate liquidation proceedings under Section 33 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, the Resolution Professional informed the CoC that, as per Section 34 of the Code, a liquidator is required to be appointed. The Resolution Professional, being eligible to act as the Liquidator provided his consent to act as the Liquidator in matter of the Corporate Debtor (as Annexure F to the notice of the present meeting), subject to the approval of the CoC, or the CoC may choose to appoint another eligible professional as the liquidator. The RP further informed the CoC that, until the liquidation application is admitted by the Hon’ble Adjudicating Authority, he is required to continue discharging his duties as Resolution Professional. For this interim period—from the date of filing the liquidation application until its admission—the RP offered to render his services at a reduced fee, amounting to 80% of his existing monthly remuneration. The CoC members consented for the appointment of RP as liquidator and the fees of RP during the interim period. The Consent Form of the Resolution Professional to act as the Liquidator is attached herewith as Annexure F for the perusal of the CoC. The following resolution was passed for this agenda: Resolution 2 – “Resolved that the existing Resolution Professional be appointed as the Liquidator for the Corporate Debtor.” Resolution 3 – “Resolved that the Resolution Professional shall continue to manage the affairs of the Corporate Debtor after the expiry of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) until an order appointing the Liquidator under section 34 is passed by the Adjudicating Authority at 80% of the current monthly fee of the Resolution Professional.” The COC took note of the matter and approved the resolution with 100% votes.

TRUE COPY

CA Atul Rajwadkar Insolvency Professional Registration No: IBBI/IPA-001/IP-P00152/2017-18/10321

III. Agenda Item no. B (3) To discuss and fix the remuneration of the Liquidator. Regarding the remuneration to be paid to the Liquidator, the RP referred to the relevant provisions regarding the remuneration of the liquidator which were attached with the notice of the meeting as Annexure E. The Resolution Professional explained that there are three possible scenarios going ahead in the Liquidation process – 1. Compromise and Arrangement: If the option of compromise or arrangement under Section 230 of the Companies Act, 2013 is explored during the liquidation process, a period of three months would be provided for this process. In such a case, the fee for the liquidator would need to be fixed specifically for this period while the proposal is being pursued. If the CoC opts for a compromise or arrangement under Section 230 of the Companies Act, 2013, the RP proposes the same fee he was entitled during the CIRP; for a maximum period of three months, which is the permitted timeline as per Regulation 4(2)(a) of Liquidation Regulations. 2. Sale of the Corporate Debtor under Section 32 of the Liquidation Regulations: The RP highlighted the various modes of sale permissible under Regulation 32 of the IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016, which include: a. Sale of an asset on a standalone basis; b. Sale of assets in a slump sale; c. Sale of a set of assets collectively; d. Sale of assets in parcels; e. Sale of the corporate debtor as a going concern; or f. Sale of the business(es) of the corporate debtor as a going concern.

The RP stated that, should the liquidator proceed with any of the above options under Regulation 32, he proposed a fee structure as per table provided in Regulation 4(2)(b) of the Liquidation regulations, 2016.

3. Fee Structure Based on Relinquishment of Security Interest

The RP outlined two potential scenarios relating to the relinquishment of security interest by secured creditors specifically SBI as it holds most of the Land & Building Security, which would impact both the asset sale strategy and the liquidator’s fee. He mentioned that this was not covered in the notice and hence it is required to be deliberated.

Scenario 1: SBI as Secured Financial Creditor, Do Not Relinquish Security Interest In this case, only the unencumbered assets would be available for sale by the liquidator. Given the limited scope, the RP proposed that the liquidator continue to draw the existing fee of ₹1,00,000 per month (same as the current RP fee) (exclusive of GST and out of pocket expenses) until the conclusion of the liquidation process.

TRUE COPY

CA Atul Rajwadkar Insolvency Professional Registration No: IBBI/IPA-001/IP-P00152/2017-18/10321

Scenario 2: SBI as Secured Financial Creditor, Relinquish Security Interest

If the secured creditors choose to relinquish their security rights, the liquidator will be able to proceed with the sale of assets under any of the six modes specified in Regulation 32. In such a case, the liquidator’s fee would be determined in accordance with Regulation 4(2)(b) of the IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016 (attached as Annexure E to the notice of this meeting).

The RP requested the CoC to deliberate and decide on the appropriate fee structure under both scenarios.

The RP and CoC members further discussed the potential for higher realizations through the sale of individual assets. Mr. Uday Kiran B noted that there had been specific inquiries for individual plots owned by the Corporate Debtor. The RP concurred, sharing insights from a his visit to Kolhapur, where brokers, etc. suggested that individual sale of plots would be a better policy to sell the assets than a collective sale, as there could be separate buyers for each plot.

In particular, Mr. Uday Kiran B enquired about the sale of Plot B-71 on a standalone basis. The RP opined that this plot also appears more feasible for sale individually being a smaller plot. The CoC agreed with the RP’s opinion.

The CoC deliberated on the fee structure and agreed for the structure suggested by the Liquidator. Thus, to summarize, the fee structure of the Liquidator shall be as follows – Sr No Scenario Fees to Charged (Amount in Rs.) In case of Compromise or Arrangement Same fee he was entitled during the CIRP; for a maximum period of three months, which is the 1. permitted timeline as per Regulation 4(2)(a) of Liquidation Regulations. (plus, GST & Out of Pocket expenses) In case of non-relinquishment of Rs. 1,00,000/- per month (plus GST & Out of 2. security interest by SBI, the Secured Pocket expenses) Financial Creditor In case of relinquishment of security Fees as per table provided in Regulation 4(2)(b) 3. interest by SBI, the Secured Financial of the Liquidation regulations, 2016 Creditor In case of relinquishment of security Fees as per table provided in Regulation 4(2)(b) 4. interest by SBI & other secured financial of the Liquidation regulations, 2016 creditors The following resolution was passed for this agenda: Resolution 4 – “Resolved that the fees of the Liquidator be approved as discussed during the meeting.” The COC took note of the matter and approved the resolution with 100% votes.

TRUE COPY

CA Atul Rajwadkar Insolvency Professional Registration No: IBBI/IPA-001/IP-P00152/2017-18/10321

IV. Agenda Item no. B (4) Estimate of Liquidation Costs.

The Resolution Professional (RP) informed the CoC members that, in accordance with Regulation 39B of the IBBI (CIRP) Regulations, 2016, it is the responsibility of the CoC, in consultation with the RP, to make the best estimate of the liquidation cost that may be incurred during the course of the liquidation process. To facilitate this, the RP (proposed to be appointed as the liquidator) prepared a broad estimate of the liquidation expenses, assuming timeline of 12 months, which included both, the expected sale of assets and the time required for filing and disposing of related applications before the Hon’ble NCLT. The RP clarified that while the sale of assets may likely be concluded in the initial few months, but the legal and compliance formalities may take some time. Based on this assumption, the RP presented the CoC with an indicative estimate of the total cost likely to be incurred. The RP requested the CoC to review and consider the Liquidation cost for the liquidation period provided in the notice of the meeting. The said Liquidation Cost as being stated below for ease of reference of the members of the CoC – Sr. Particulars of Cost Unit Rate/Per No of Total Estimate No. Month Estimate Units/Events 1 Public Announcements 130,000 1 130,000 a Commencement of Liquidation 130,000 1 130,000 b Compromise/Arrangement 130,000 1 130,000 c List of Stakeholder 130,000 1 130,000 d Auction Notices 130,000 3 390,000 2 Security Guards 93,720 12 1,124,640 3 Legal Expenses a PUFE Application Cost 250,000 1 250,000 b Progress Reports 35,000 4 140,000 c List of stakeholders 35,000 2 70,000 d Other Misc IA 35,000 2 70,000 e Preliminary Report & Asset 35,000 1 35,000 Memorandum f Legal Opinions/Consultant (if 100,000 1 100,000 any) for PF/Gratuity g Appearances for above IA 18,000 12 216,000 4 Auditor for Receipt & Payment 30,000 1 30,000 5 Travelling, Postage & 150,000 1 150,000 Miscellaneous Cost 6 Liquidator's Fee At actuals Liquidator's Fee Total 30,95,640

TRUE COPY

CA Atul Rajwadkar Insolvency Professional Registration No: IBBI/IPA-001/IP-P00152/2017-18/10321

The RP informed that as per liquidation regulations, the financial creditors will be required to contribute to the costs once the application for Liquidation is allowed. He further stated that, the above estimate does not include the estimation for PF/gratuity of past employees. The RP informed the CoC that he has made a fair estimation of the cost in the above table and the actual cost may vary during the course of time. Mr. Uday Kiran B inquired about the time taken by the adjudicating authority to allow the liquidation application and stated that according to them the application may be allowed in two or three months. The RP stated that it depends on the Hon’ble NCLT, however, a period of two – three months is a fair estimate. CoC agreed with the estimation of liquidation cost by the RP and the following resolution was passed during the meeting: Resolution 5- “Resolved that the estimated Liquidation Cost as discussed in the meeting be approved” The COC took note of the matter and approved the resolution with 100% votes.

Any Other Matter discussed during the meeting Pending CIRP Cost: The Resolution Professional informed the CoC members that several CIRP-related costs remain unpaid, including the fees of registered valuers, RP’s fees, security expenses, and advertisement charges. He highlighted that the current funds available in the CIRP account are approximately ₹3 lakhs, which may not be sufficient to meet all outstanding obligations. The RP stated that he will update on the exact shortfall in funds required to settle the pending CIRP costs and requested the CoC members to consider contributing additional funds to support the process.

The legal provisions discussed during the course of the meeting, as shared with the notice, are being attached herewith for the easy reference of the members of the CoC as Annexure E. No other item was discussed. The RP declared the conclusion of the meeting and thanked all the participants. A summary of the Resolutions passed during the meeting by voice vote is mentioned below for ease of reference -

Resolution Resolution Item Passed during the meeting Vote details % of vote No. of approval Resolved that the Resolution Professional be allowed SBI & BOB – 1 to file an application under Section 33 of the both voted in 100% Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, for initiation of favour

TRUE COPY

CA Atul Rajwadkar Insolvency Professional Registration No: IBBI/IPA-001/IP-P00152/2017-18/10321 liquidation proceedings of Marvelous Metals Pvt. Ltd., before the Hon’ble NCLT. Resolved that the existing Resolution Professional be SBI & BOB – 2 appointed as the Liquidator for the Corporate Debtor. both voted in 100% favour Resolved that the Resolution Professional shall SBI & BOB – continue to manage the affairs of the Corporate both voted in Debtor after the expiry of Corporate Insolvency favour 3 Resolution Process (CIRP) until an order appointing the 100% Liquidator under section 34 is passed by the Adjudicating Authority at 80% of the current monthly fee of the Resolution Professional. Resolved that the fees of the Liquidator be approved SBI & BOB – 4 as discussed during the meeting both voted in 100% favour Resolved that the estimated Liquidation Cost as SBI & BOB – 5 discussed in the meeting be approved. both voted in 100% favour The details of voting share of members of the committee of creditors are as below –

Sr No Committee Member (Creditor) Voting Share 1 State Bank of India 94.24% 2 Bank of Baroda 5.76% Total 100.00%

CA Atul Rajwadkar Resolution Professional Marvelous Metals Pvt. Ltd. (undergoing Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process) Email: cirp.marvelous@resurgentrpl.com; vervecapital@gmail.com REG NO.: IBBI/IPA-001/IP-P00152/2017-18/10321 AFA No.: AA1/10321/02/300625/107274 (valid up to 30/06/2025) Date: 10.06.2025 Place: Nagpur

TRUE COPY

Annexure A Update on CIRP Cost incurred from 13.12.2024 to 03.06.2025 Sr. No. Type of Cost Approved Not Whether paid or Approved not Interim Resolution Professional 1st CoC Meeting — 24.01.2025 1 Form A Publication Charges — 13,608.00 -- Paid Riyo Advertising 2 Fees to IRP (inc GST) (13.12.24 to 1,18,000.00 -- Paid 12.01.25) 3 ROC filing Charges — INC-28 1,200.00 -- Paid Total (A) 1,32,808.00 -- — 2nd CoC Meeting 15.02.2025 1 New Bank Account Opening — 300.00 -- Paid Notary Charges 2 Fees to IRP (inc GST) (13.01.2025 to 1,18,000.00 -- Paid 12.02.2025) 3 IRP Kolhapur Visit Charges 10,927.00 -- Paid 4 Miscellaneous Expenses of above 820.00 -- Paid Visit Total (B) 1,30,047.00 -- — 3rd CoC Meeting 17.03.2025 1 Linkstar Infosys Private Limited — 2 5,900.00 -- Paid CoC E-voting Charges 2 Thakur Security Services — Service 25,714.00 -- Paid Charges for the month of Feb 2025 3 Parag Seth — L&B 60,000.00 -- Unpaid 4 Ms. Mota Monica— L&B 65,000.00 -- Unpaid 5 Vipul Rajpara - P&M 25,000.00 -- Unpaid 6 Mr. Lionel Azavedo — P&M 25,000.00 -- Unpaid 7 Yatin Shah — SFA 20,000.00 -- Unpaid 8 Pinkain Shah — SFA 20.000.00 -- Unpaid 9 M/s JM Associates Chartered 2,50,000.00 -- Unpaid Accountants — Transaction Auditor 10 Fees to IRP (inc GST) (13.02.2025 to 1,18,000.00 -- Paid 12.02.2025) Total (C) 6,14,614.00 -- 4th CoC Meeting — 11.04.2025 1 Fees to IRP (inc GST) (13.03.2025 to 1,18,000.00 -- Paid 12.04.2025) 2 Thakur Security Services — Service charges for the month of March 30,000.00 -- Paid 2025 3 Gravitas Legal — Filing of CoC 97,465.00 -- Paid Constitution & 19(2) 4 Riyo Advertising — Form G 91,514.00 -- Paid Publication Charges Total (D) 3,36,979.00 --

TRUE COPY

Resolution Professional 1 PP Media Solution — Form G 1,28,436.00 -- To be ratified Publication Charges 2 Thakur Security Services — Service Charges for the month of April 60,000.00 -- To be ratified 2025 & May 2025 3 Integrated Security Services — Service Charge for the month of 63,720.00 -- To be ratified April 2025 4 Travelling Cost 15,000.00 -- To be ratified 5 Fees of RP (Inc GST) (16.04.2025 to 2,36,000.00 -- To be ratified 11.06.2025) 6 Postage Cost 1,144.00 -- To be ratified Total (E) 5,04,300.00 Total (A+B+C+D+E) 17,18,748.00

TRUE COPY

We are not a member of the Welfare Fund. Hence stamp of Rs. 2/- is not affixed herewith. Advocate

BEFORE THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH INTERLOC!UTORY APPLICATION NO. OF 2025 IN C< )MPANY PETITION NO. 645 OF 2024 (Under Ri le 154 of the National Company Law Rules, 2016) Resolution Professic nal Atul Rajwadkar ...Applicant IN THE MATTER OF: State Bank of India ...Financial Creditor Versus Marvelous Metals P1t. Ltd. ...Corporate Debtor

To, The Registrar, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai BBeenncchh - CR 1 Sir, I, Atul Rajwadkar, Applicant abovenamed do herebyappoint Gravitas Legal, Adv. Rahul Gaikwad, Ad \ Nikita Abhyankar, Adv. Komai Singh and Adv. Aditi Chandwani to act, ppear and plead for us and on our behalf in the above < captioned matter. In witness whereof, I have set and subscribed our hand to this writing. v PA A \ / On this 8th day of August, 2025 yj V At Mumbai. " Atul Rajwadkar Applicant

RAJWADKAR ATUL Gravitas Legal PROFESSIONAL INSOLVENCY Advocates for the Applicant RegistrationNo: IBB1/IPA-001/ 205, 2nd Floor, 58/6' Hari Chambers, IP-P00152/2017-18/10321 Opp. Old Custom He use, Fort, Mumbai- 400023 nikita.abhyankar@g]avitaslegal.co.in 9833789241 MAH/4540/2018