M/S Pragiti Construction Through ... vs Committee Of Creditor Represented By ...

IN THE MATTER OF: Pragiti Construction, ...Appellant Through Proprietor Renu Verma

Versus

Committee of Creditor ...Respondents Represented by Mahavir Medicare & Anr.

Present:

For Appellant : Mr. Milan Singh Negi, Mr. Nikhil Kumar Jha, Mr. Utkarsh, Advocates for erstwhile RP/Applicant.

For Respondents :

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

INDEVAR PANDEY, MEMBER (T)

The present Interlocutory Applications bearing nos. 2480 & 2481 of

2026 have been filed by Mr. Rajeev Ranjan Singh, the erstwhile

Resolution Professional of Rancom Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., seeking

expungement of certain observations and strictures recorded against him

in paragraph 99 of the judgment dated 06.02.2026 passed by this Appellate

Tribunal in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) Nos. 2330 and 2331 of 2024,

titled Pragiti Construction through its Proprietor Smt. Renu Verma v.

Committee of Creditors of Rancom Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., represented

through Mahavir Medicare & Anr. The aforesaid appeals arose from the orders dated 12.11.2024 passed by the Adjudicating Authority whereby the

Resolution Plan submitted by Mahavir Medicare, the sole Operational

Creditor and sole member of the Committee of Creditors of the Corporate

Debtor, was approved, while the competing Resolution Plan submitted by

Pragiti Construction was not accepted. By judgment dated 06.02.2026,

this Appellate Tribunal set aside the approval of the Resolution Plan and

directed initiation of liquidation proceedings against the Corporate Debtor,

while also making certain adverse observations against the applicant in

relation to the conduct of the CIRP. Aggrieved solely by the said

observations and not by the substantive findings rendered in the appeals,

the applicant preferred Civil Appeal Nos. 3060-3061 of 2026 before the

Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, by order dated

13.03.2026, declined to interfere with the judgment but granted liberty to

the applicant to approach this Tribunal with a prayer for expunging the

remarks made against him. Pursuant to the said liberty, the present

application has been filed under Rule 11 of the NCLAT Rules, 2016 seeking

deletion of the observations contained in paragraph 99 of the judgment

dated 06.02.2026. Relevant portion of Order of Hon'ble Supreme Court has

been extracted below:

Page 2 of 21

I.A. No.2481 & 2480 of 2026 in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No.2330 & 2331 of 2024 Brief Facts of the case are as follows:

2. The facts relevant for deciding this appeal are as given below:

(i) The Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process of Rancom Healthcare

Pvt. Ltd. commenced pursuant to an order dated 21.12.2023 passed

Page 3 of 21 I.A. No.2481 & 2480 of 2026 in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No.2330 & 2331 of 2024 by the Adjudicating Authority on an application filed by Mahavir

Medicare under Section 9 of the IBC, and Mr. Rajeev Ranjan Singh was

appointed as the Interim Resolution Professional.

(ii) Pursuant to the public announcement, no claim was received from

any creditor except Mahavir Medicare. Consequently, in the absence

of any Financial Creditor, the applicant constituted the Committee of

Creditors under Section 21 of the IBC read with Regulation 16 of the

CIRP Regulations, with Mahavir Medicare being the sole CoC member

having an admitted operational debt of Rs.14,62,35,160/-.

(iii) During CIRP, Mahavir Medicare and Pragiti Construction were

found eligible to submit Resolution Plans. Ultimately, the Resolution

Plan submitted by Mahavir Medicare came to be approved by the sole-

member CoC in its 5th meeting held on 07.06.2024. Thereafter, Pragiti

Construction submitted its Resolution Plan on 13.06.2024, which was

not considered by the CoC and the same was communicated to it on

16.06.2024.

(iv) Aggrieved by non-consideration of its Resolution Plan, Pragiti

Construction filed IA No. 358 of 2024 before the Adjudicating

Authority. Simultaneously, the applicant filed IA No. 401 of 2024

seeking approval of the Resolution Plan submitted by Mahavir

Medicare.

(v) The Adjudicating Authority, by order dated 10.09.2024, directed the

CoC to freshly consider the Resolution Plan submitted by Pragiti

Page 4 of 21 I.A. No.2481 & 2480 of 2026 in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No.2330 & 2331 of 2024 Construction and take an appropriate decision. However, the already

approved Resolution Plan of Mahavir Medicare was not remitted back

to the CoC for reconsideration and continued to remain pending before

the Adjudicating Authority. By that stage, the CIRP period had already

expired on 18.06.2024.

(vi) In compliance with the aforesaid order, the applicant convened the

6th CoC Meeting on 18.09.2024. During the meeting, the applicant

informed the CoC that the Resolution Plan submitted by Pragiti

Construction offered a higher value than the plan submitted by

Mahavir Medicare and that consideration of such plan could result in

a competitive process. Despite the said observations, the sole CoC

member rejected the Resolution Plan of Pragiti Construction.

(vii) Thereafter, both IA No. 358 of 2024 and IA No. 401 of 2024 were

decided by the Adjudicating Authority through orders dated

12.11.2024. While IA No. 358 of 2024 was dismissed on the ground of

commercial wisdom of the CoC, IA No. 401 of 2024 was allowed and

the Resolution Plan submitted by Mahavir Medicare was approved

under Section 31 of the IBC.

(viii) Challenging both orders, Pragiti Construction filed Company

Appeal (AT) (Ins.) Nos. 2330 and 2331 of 2024 before this Appellate

Tribunal. By judgment dated 06.02.2026, this Tribunal held that the

sole Operational Creditor, being also the Resolution Applicant, could

not have approved its own Resolution Plan in view of Section 30(5) of

Page 5 of 21 I.A. No.2481 & 2480 of 2026 in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No.2330 & 2331 of 2024 the IBC. Accordingly, the approval of the Resolution Plan was set aside,

liquidation of the Corporate Debtor was directed, and certain adverse

observations were made against the applicant in paragraph 99 of the

judgment.

(ix) Aggrieved only by the aforesaid observations and strictures, the

applicant preferred Civil Appeal Nos. 3060-3061 of 2026 before the

Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, by order dated

13.03.2026, granted liberty to the applicant to approach this Tribunal

seeking expungement of the remarks made against him. Pursuant

thereto, the present application has been filed.

Submissions of the Appellant

3. The Appellant has framed two issues regarding the grounds for

expungement of remarks and strictures passed in the judgment dated

06.02.2026 of this appellate Tribunal, which are given below:-

(i) Whether a Resolution Applicant who is also an Operational

Creditor of the Corporate Debtor and the sole member of the

Committee of Creditors holding 100% voting rights can approve

its own Resolution Plan?

(ii) Whether such a Committee of Creditors consisting of only one

member, who is also a Resolution Applicant and directly

interested in the outcome of the resolution process, can fairly,

objectively and Independently assess the feasibility and viability

Page 6 of 21 I.A. No.2481 & 2480 of 2026 in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No.2330 & 2331 of 2024 of competing Resolution Plans submitted by other Resolution

Applicants?

Issue No.1

4. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant submits that while deciding the appeals

vide judgment dated 06.02.2026, this Hon'ble Tribunal considered Issue

No.1 in paragraphs 80 and 81 of the judgment and recorded its conclusion

in paragraph 82. This Hon'ble Tribunal held that since the Successful

Resolution Applicant, namely Mahaveer Medicare, was an Operational

Creditor and not a Financial Creditor, it could not have exercised voting

rights on its own Resolution Plan. Relying upon Section 30(5) of the

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, this Hon'ble Tribunal concluded

that the approval of the Resolution Plan by such sole CoC member was

impermissible and accordingly answered the issue in the negative.

5. Counsel for the Appellant respectfully submits that the aforesaid

conclusion has resulted in adverse observations against the

Appellant/Erstwhile Resolution Professional despite the fact that the

Appellant had acted strictly in accordance with the statutory framework

governing situations where a Corporate Debtor has no Financial Creditors.

6. It is submitted that Regulation 16(4) of the Insolvency and

Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate

Persons) Regulations, 2016 specifically provides for situations where the

Committee of Creditors consists solely of Operational Creditors. The said

Regulation expressly stipulates that where the Committee comprises only

Operational Creditors, such Operational Creditors shall enjoy the same

Page 7 of 21 I.A. No.2481 & 2480 of 2026 in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No.2330 & 2331 of 2024 rights, powers, duties and obligations as are available to a Committee of

Creditors consisting of Financial Creditors. The legislative intent behind

Regulation 16(4) is to ensure that insolvency proceedings are not rendered

unworkable merely because no Financial Creditor exists in the Corporate

Debtor.

7. He further submits that the above Regulation derives statutory

support from Section 21 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. In

particular, the proviso to Section 21(8) contemplates a situation where a

Corporate Debtor does not have any Financial Creditor. In such

circumstances, the Committee of Creditors is required to be constituted in

the manner prescribed and such persons are empowered to discharge the

functions ordinarily performed by a Committee of Creditors. Therefore, the

Code itself recognises that insolvency resolution may proceed even in the

absence of Financial Creditors and empowers Operational Creditors to

perform the role of the Committee of Creditors through the mechanism

prescribed under the Regulations.

8. Ld. Counsel submits that a conjoint reading of the proviso to Section

21(8) of the Code and Regulation 16 of the CIRP Regulations leaves no room

for doubt that in the present case the Appellant had no option but to

constitute the Committee of Creditors with Mahaveer Medicare, which was

the sole creditor and the only stakeholder who had filed a claim in the

Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process. The Appellant, being the

Resolution Professional, was statutorily obligated to constitute such

Committee in accordance with law.

Page 8 of 21 I.A. No.2481 & 2480 of 2026 in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No.2330 & 2331 of 2024

9. It is further submitted that once the Committee of Creditors stood

constituted solely with an Operational Creditor in terms of the statutory

framework, the Appellant was equally bound to extend to such Operational

Creditor all rights and powers which a Financial Creditor would ordinarily

exercise as a member of the Committee of Creditors. Consequently,

permitting the sole CoC member to participate in the consideration and

approval of the Resolution Plan was not a discretionary act of the Appellant,

but rather a consequence flowing from the statutory scheme itself. Had the

Appellant denied such voting rights, it would have effectively rendered the

entire CIRP unworkable and contrary to the legislative framework governing

insolvency proceedings involving Corporate Debtors having no Financial

Creditors.

10. Ld. Counsel therefore submits that the act of the Appellant in

permitting the sole CoC member, who was an Operational Creditor and also

a Resolution Applicant, to exercise voting rights on the Resolution Plan was

undertaken bona fide and in faithful compliance with the statutory

provisions governing such exceptional circumstances. The Appellant

neither acted in disregard of law nor sought to confer any undue advantage

upon any stakeholder. The course adopted by the Appellant was based

upon a reasonable interpretation of Regulation 16(4) read with Section 21(8)

of the Code.

11. Accordingly, Ld. Counsel submits that the observations and

strictures passed against the Appellant in relation to the voting by the sole

Operational Creditor ought not to be attributed to any misconduct,

Page 9 of 21 I.A. No.2481 & 2480 of 2026 in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No.2330 & 2331 of 2024 negligence or deliberate violation on the part of the Appellant. The remarks

made in this regard therefore deserve to be expunged.

Issue No. 2

12. Whether such a Committee of Creditors consisting of only one member,

who is also a Resolution Applicant and directly interested in the outcome of

the resolution process, can fairly, objectively and independently assess the

feasibility and viability of competing Resolution Plans submitted by other

Resolution Applicants?

13. Ld. Counsel submits that this Appellate Tribunal considered Issue

No.2 in paragraphs 85 to 92 of the judgment and recorded its conclusions

in paragraphs 97 and 98. This Appellate Tribunal observed that the

Resolution Professional failed to invite Pragiti Construction, the

unsuccessful Prospective Resolution Applicant, to the meeting of the

Committee of Creditors as contemplated under Section 30(5) of the Code. It

was further observed that no Evaluation Matrix had been prepared and that

the process adopted by the Committee of Creditors was contrary to the

principle that no person should be a judge in his own cause. Based on these

findings, this Hon'ble Tribunal concluded that the rejection of the

Resolution Plan submitted by Pragiti Construction was vitiated by material

irregularity.

14. Ld. Counsel respectfully submits that the aforesaid observations do

not consider the peculiar and unprecedented factual circumstances

prevailing at the relevant time and the bona fide efforts undertaken by the

Page 10 of 21 I.A. No.2481 & 2480 of 2026 in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No.2330 & 2331 of 2024 Appellant to ensure strict compliance with the provisions of the Code and

the CIRP Regulations.

15. He submits that pursuant to the order dated 10.09.2024 passed by

the Learned Adjudicating Authority in IA No.358 of 2024, whereby the

Committee of Creditors was directed to consider the Resolution Plan

submitted by Pragiti Construction and take an independent decision, the

Appellant immediately proceeded to convene the 6th meeting of the

Committee of Creditors. Accordingly, on 16.09.2024, notice of the 6th CoC

meeting was issued. Agenda Item No.5 specifically stated that the purpose

of the meeting was "to discuss and decide the next course of action as per

order of Hon'ble NCLT in IA 358/2024 vide order dated 10th September

2024."

16. Ld. Counsel submits that the wording of the agenda was consciously

framed in that manner because by that stage the statutory period of

Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process had already expired on

18.06.2024. The Appellant was therefore confronted with a serious legal

dilemma. Any direct placement of the Resolution Plan submitted by Pragiti

Construction for voting after expiry of the CIRP period could potentially

violate Regulation 18(2) of the CIRP Regulations as well as the settled legal

position that a Resolution Plan must be considered and approved within

the timelines prescribed under Section 12 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Code, 2016.

17. It is submitted that the objective behind Agenda Item No.5 was

therefore not to avoid consideration of the Resolution Plan submitted by

Page 11 of 21 I.A. No.2481 & 2480 of 2026 in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No.2330 & 2331 of 2024 Pragiti Construction, but rather to determine the legally permissible course

by which the directions of the Ld. Adjudicating Authority could be

implemented without violating the mandatory provisions of the Code and

the Regulations. The Appellant intended that the Committee of Creditors

should first deliberate upon the procedural steps required, including the

possibility of seeking extension or appropriate directions from the Learned

Adjudicating Authority, before proceeding to consider the Resolution Plan

itself.

18. Ld. Counsel submits that despite the aforesaid intent of the

Appellant, the sole member of the Committee of Creditors independently

took up the issue of the Resolution Plan submitted by Pragiti Construction

under Agenda Item No.4 relating to the overview of the CIRP and proceeded

to reject the Resolution Plan. The rejection was not a consequence of any

instruction or direction issued by the Appellant. On the contrary, the

Appellant actively endeavoured to persuade the sole CoC member to

consider the Resolution Plan submitted by Pragiti Construction,

particularly because such consideration could potentially lead to value

maximisation and would be beneficial for the insolvency resolution process.

19. It is further submitted that the allegation regarding non-preparation

of an Evaluation Matrix must also be appreciated in the factual context of

the case. The Resolution Plan submitted by Pragiti Construction was not

formally taken on record during the original CIRP process because it had

been submitted long after expiry of the extended timeline granted for

submission of Resolution Plans. It was only pursuant to the order dated

Page 12 of 21 I.A. No.2481 & 2480 of 2026 in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No.2330 & 2331 of 2024 10.09.2024 passed by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority that the possibility of

considering the said Resolution Plan arose. Consequently, the Evaluation

Matrix would necessarily have been prepared and placed before the

Committee of Creditors at the stage when the Resolution Plan was formally

considered in accordance with law and after addressing the legal issues

arising from expiry of the CIRP period.

20. Ld. Counsel submits that the circumstances confronting the

Appellant were entirely unique and unprecedented. The Appellant was

dealing with a situation where there was only one Operational Creditor

constituting the entire Committee of Creditors, where such Operational

Creditor was itself a Resolution Applicant, where the CIRP period had

already expired, and where subsequent judicial directions required

consideration of a Resolution Plan that had been submitted after expiry of

the prescribed timelines. The Appellant had never previously encountered

such a situation and was required to navigate competing statutory

obligations under the Code and Regulations.

21. It is submitted that if, in attempting to reconcile these competing legal

requirements, certain procedural compliances were not implemented in the

precise manner subsequently considered appropriate by this Hon'ble

Tribunal, the same cannot be construed as deliberate misconduct, mala

fide conduct or dereliction of duty on the part of the Appellant. At all stages,

the Appellant acted bona fide and sought to ensure compliance with the

statutory framework governing the insolvency process.

Page 13 of 21 I.A. No.2481 & 2480 of 2026 in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No.2330 & 2331 of 2024

22. Ld. Counsel therefore submits that the non-invitation of Pragiti

Construction to the 6th CoC meeting and the non-placement of an

Evaluation Matrix cannot be viewed in isolation. The notice issued for the

6th CoC meeting did not contemplate consideration of the Resolution Plan

itself. The agenda was confined to deliberation on the future course of

action in light of the order passed by the Learned Adjudicating Authority

and the expiry of the CIRP timeline. The subsequent rejection of the

Resolution Plan occurred because the sole CoC member independently

chose to take up the matter under another agenda item and reject the

Resolution Plan despite the Appellant's efforts to secure its consideration.

23. It is further submitted that the remarks contained in paragraph 99

of the judgment dated 06.02.2026 are substantially founded upon two

allegations, namely: (i) permitting the sole Operational Creditor to vote on

its own Resolution Plan; and (ii) failure to invite Pragiti Construction to the

meeting in which its Resolution Plan came to be rejected.

24. Insofar as the first allegation is concerned, the Appellant has already

demonstrated that the grant of voting rights to the sole Operational Creditor

was based upon Regulation 16(4) of the CIRP Regulations read with the

proviso to Section 21(8) of the Code and was undertaken in discharge of the

Appellant's statutory duties.

25. Insofar as the second allegation is concerned, the notice convening

the 6th CoC meeting clearly demonstrates that there was no agenda item

for consideration of the Resolution Plan submitted by Pragiti Construction.

The meeting was convened to discuss the next lawful course of action in

Page 14 of 21 I.A. No.2481 & 2480 of 2026 in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No.2330 & 2331 of 2024 view of the peculiar factual and legal circumstances prevailing at that stage.

Notwithstanding this position, the sole CoC member proceeded to reject the

Resolution Plan under a different agenda item despite the Appellant's efforts

to persuade the Committee to consider the proposal in the interest of value

maximisation.

26. Ld. Counsel further submits that after pronouncement of the

judgment dated 06.02.2026, the Appellant acted promptly and responsibly

by filing IA No.234 of 2026 before the Ld. Adjudicating Authority. Through

the said application, the Appellant placed on record the judgment of this

Hon'ble Tribunal and sought implementation of the directions contained

therein. Acting upon the judgment dated 06.02.2026, the Learned

Adjudicating Authority, vide order dated 10.04.2026, initiated liquidation

proceedings against the Corporate Debtor and appointed a Liquidator. The

Appellant thus demonstrated complete respect for and compliance with the

judicial directions issued by this Appellate Tribunal.

27. In these circumstances, Ld. Counsel submits that the observations

and strictures contained in paragraph 99 of the judgment dated 06.02.2026

do not accurately reflect the bona fide conduct of the Appellant and are

liable to cause serious and lasting prejudice to the professional reputation

of the Appellant. The actions of the Appellant were undertaken in good faith,

in discharge of statutory duties, and in an unprecedented factual scenario

involving significant legal complexities.

28. Therefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Appellate Tribunal

may be pleased to expunge the remarks and strictures contained in

Page 15 of 21 I.A. No.2481 & 2480 of 2026 in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No.2330 & 2331 of 2024 paragraph 99 of the judgment dated 06.02.2026 and grant such further

reliefs as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of

the case.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

29. We have gone through the documents on record and have heard Ld.

Counsel at length. The Applicant has sought expungement of the remarks

made against him in paragraph 99 of the judgment dated 06.02.2026,

which is reproduced below:

"99. The Resolution Professional plays a pivotal role in proceedings under the Code. It is expected that RP would conduct the CIRP proceedings in accordance with the provisions of the Code including the Rules and Regulations thereunder. It was the duty of RP to highlight the provisions of Section 30 (5) to the notice of Operational Creditor and the Adjudicating Authority. Had it been done on time, this proceeding would not have wasted so much of time and resources of NCLT and this Appellate Tribunal. A RP is supposed to be well versed in the relevant legal provisions of the Code. His failure to take note of Section 30(5) of the Code is viewed seriously. The matter is brought to the notice of IBBI for appropriate action against the RP. IBBI is further directed to take note of peculiar legal situation of the present case and initiate necessary amendments to the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.

30. At the outset, it is necessary to clarify that the scope of the present

Interlocutory Application is extremely limited. The Applicant does not seek

review of the Judgment dated 06.02.2026 on merits, nor does he seek

reconsideration of the findings recorded by this Tribunal while deciding

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) Nos. 2330 and 2331 of 2024. The findings

recorded therein on the legality of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution

Page 16 of 21 I.A. No.2481 & 2480 of 2026 in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No.2330 & 2331 of 2024 Process, the approval of the Resolution Plan, and the role of the Committee

of Creditors have attained finality and are not the subject matter of the

present proceedings. The Applicant has confined the present application

only to the adverse observations and consequential directions recorded

against him in paragraph 99 of the said Judgment, pursuant to the liberty

granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

31. The Applicant has submitted that he discharged his duties as the

Resolution Professional bona fide and in accordance with his

understanding of the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code,

2016 and the CIRP Regulations. According to him, the present case arose

out of a highly unusual factual situation where there were no Financial

Creditors and the Committee of Creditors consisted of only one Operational

Creditor, who also happened to be the sole Resolution Applicant whose

Resolution Plan ultimately came to be approved. It has been contended that

neither the Code nor the CIRP Regulations expressly deal with such a

situation and there was no judicial precedent directly governing the issue

at the relevant time. The Applicant has further submitted that he

constituted the Committee of Creditors in accordance with Regulation 16 of

the CIRP Regulations read with Section 21(8) of the Code and acted

throughout under a bona fide understanding of the statutory framework. It

has also been pointed out that during the 6th meeting of the Committee of

Creditors, the Applicant himself informed the Committee that the

Resolution Plan submitted by M/s Pragati Constructions offered a

substantially higher value than the Resolution Plan submitted by the

Successful Resolution Applicant and further suggested that consideration Page 17 of 21 I.A. No.2481 & 2480 of 2026 in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No.2330 & 2331 of 2024 of the competing Resolution Plans could result in healthy competition and

value maximisation. According to the Applicant, he derived no personal

benefit from the process and had no intention to circumvent the provisions

of the Code. The Applicant has also tendered an unconditional apology for

any omission on his part and has prayed that the personal remarks and

consequential directions issued against him be expunged.

32. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the

material placed on record.

33. The Resolution Professional occupies a position of trust under the

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. He is expected to function as an

independent professional and to ensure that the Corporate Insolvency

Resolution Process is conducted in a fair, transparent and lawful manner.

The Resolution Professional is not expected to merely act upon the decisions

of the Committee of Creditors but is also required to ensure that the process

conforms to the provisions of the Code and the Regulations framed

thereunder. Where any circumstance arises which has the potential to

affect the fairness or legality of the process, it is the duty of the Resolution

Professional to place the same before the Adjudicating Authority so that

appropriate directions may be obtained.

34. The findings recorded by this Tribunal in the Judgment dated

06.02.2026 were rendered in the context of the peculiar facts of the present

case. The Tribunal found that the approval of the Resolution Plan suffered

from material irregularity arising out of the composition of the Committee

of Creditors and the manner in which the Resolution Plan came to be

Page 18 of 21 I.A. No.2481 & 2480 of 2026 in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No.2330 & 2331 of 2024 approved. Those findings have attained finality and are not liable to be

reopened in the present proceedings. Consequently, the observations

regarding the statutory obligations expected from a Resolution Professional

and the importance of ensuring compliance with the provisions of the Code

do not call for any interference.

35. We find substance in the explanation given by the Applicant for his

actions in the CIRP proceedings. The error on his part appears to have

arisen, because of the peculiar statutory scheme governing the present case

and not because of any intentional attempt to violate the provisions of the

Code. Regulation 16 of the CIRP Regulations provides that where there are

no Financial Creditors, the Committee of Creditors shall consist of

Operational Creditors and that such Committee and its members shall have

the same rights, powers, duties and obligations as a Committee comprising

Financial Creditors. In the present case, the sole Operational Creditor

constituted the Committee of Creditors with 100% voting rights in

accordance with Regulation 16. Subsequently, the same Operational

Creditor also submitted a Resolution Plan and became a Resolution

Applicant.

36. The Applicant appears to have proceeded on the understanding that

since Regulation 16(4) gave the sole Operational Creditor the same rights

and powers as a Financial Creditor, it could also exercise voting rights,

while considering its own Resolution Plan. However, the proviso to Section

30(5) of the Code specifically provides that a Resolution Applicant cannot

vote on its own Resolution Plan, unless it is also a Financial Creditor. Thus,

Page 19 of 21 I.A. No.2481 & 2480 of 2026 in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No.2330 & 2331 of 2024 while the Committee of Creditors was validly constituted under Regulation

16, and the Committee comprising of only operational creditors had all the

powers of financial creditors, the voting by the sole Operational Creditor on

its own Resolution Plan was hit by the statutory bar under Section 30(5).

37. The Applicant has also pointed out that during the 6th meeting of the

Committee of Creditors, he himself brought to the notice of the Committee

the higher value offered under the competing Resolution Plan and

suggested that consideration of the same could result in a healthier

competitive process. The record does not disclose that the Applicant acted

for any personal gain or with any deliberate intention to circumvent the

provisions of the Code.

38. Therefore, considering the peculiar facts of the present case and the

interplay between Regulation 16 and Section 30(5), we are of the view that

the Applicant's omission appears to have resulted from an incorrect

understanding of the statutory provisions, rather than any deliberate or

mala fide conduct on his part.

39. In the facts of the present case, while we find no reason to interfere

with the findings recorded in the Judgment dated 06.02.2026 regarding the

statutory duties expected of a Resolution Professional and the procedural

irregularities noticed in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process. At the

same time, we are of the view that the material subsequently brought to our

notice shows that the Applicant may not have acted with any mala fide

intention, dishonest motive or for any personal benefit. The explanation

furnished by the Applicant, coupled with the peculiar factual and legal

Page 20 of 21 I.A. No.2481 & 2480 of 2026 in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No.2330 & 2331 of 2024 circumstances in which the present Corporate Insolvency Resolution

Process was conducted, persuades us to hold that the ends of justice would

be adequately served by maintaining the findings on the legal issues

decided in the Judgment, while expunging the personal strictures and the

consequential direction issued against the Applicant.

40. Accordingly, the present Interlocutory Application is allowed. The

personal observations and consequential directions contained in paragraph

99 of the Judgment against the Applicant/erstwhile Resolution Professional

are hereby expunged.

[Justice N. Seshasayee] Member (Judicial)

[Arun Baroka] Member (Technical)

[Indevar Pandey] Member (Technical) Place: New Delhi Dated: 06.07.2026

Harleen Pragya (LRA)

Page 21 of 21 I.A. No.2481 & 2480 of 2026 in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No.2330 & 2331 of 2024