Ramkumar Pal vs Bank Of India

(Arising out of the Order dated 20.03.2024 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, Court-V in I.A. 828/2023 in C.P.(IB)- 2946/MB/2019). Ankit Suresh Wadhwa Suspended Partner of Wadhwa Buildcon LLP & Proposed Resolution Applicant Shivansh Palace, Near Wadhwa Heights, Godrej Hill, Near Shankar Mandir, Barave Gaon, Kalyan-421301 Maharashtra Email: ankitwadhwa@live.in ...Appellant

Versus 1. Bank of India Panchpakhdi Branch, Vandana House, Near Vandana Cinema, LBS Marg, Thane (W) -400602, Maharashtra ...Respondent No. 1 Email: legal.navimumbai@bankofindia.co.in

2. Mr. Manish Lalji Dawda Resolution Professional of Wadhwa Buildcon LLP C/o: 205A, 2nd Floor, Hiren Light Industrial Estate, Behind Johnson & Johnson, Bhagoji Kheer Marg, Mahim West Mumbai Maharashtra- 400016 Email: ip.dawdamanish@gmail.com , cirpwbl@gmail.com ...Respondent No. 2

3. Mr. Prabhat Jain Authorised representative of Financial Creditors in class of Homebuyers, C-601, Dream Veeroday Soc, Tulja Bhawani Nagar, Khardi, Blueberry Build, Pune-110014, Maharashtra Email: ip.caprabhatjain@gmail.com ...Respondent No. 3

4. Mr. Vishal Parab, COC Member of Wadhwa Buildcon LLP 104, First Floor, A wing, Wadhwa Meadows, Opp. B Ward, Kalyan Thane, Maharashtra-421301 Email: vishalparab2888@gmail.com ...Respondent No. 4

5. Mr. Vishal Patil COC Member of Wadhwa Buildcon LLP 104, First Floor, A wing, Wadhwa Meadows, Opp. B Ward, Kalyan Thane, Maharashtra-421301 Email: vishalpatil841111@gmail.com ...Respondent No. 5 6. Capri Global Capital Limited COC Member of Wadhwa Buildcon LLP 502, Tower- A, Peninsula Business Park Tower, A, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013 Maharashtra Email: sushil.gupta@capriglobal.in, bhupinder.singh@capriglobal.in ...Respondent No. 6

7. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India Regulatory body, incorporated under Insolvency and Bankruptcy code, 2016 7th Floor, Mayur Bhawan Shanker Market Connaught Circus, New Delhi-110001 Email: c.ramachandrarao@ibbi.gov.in ...Respondent No. 7

Present For Appellants: Mr. Jitender Chaudhary, Ms. Shilpa Chohan, Mr. Mohit Matani & Ms. Aditi Singh, advocates.

Page 2 of 41 For Respondent: Ms. Aditi Sharma & Mr. Maulik Choksi, for RP. Mr. Aditya Kumar & Ms. Ila Nath, for R-1.

With Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1298 of 2024 & I.A. No. 4677, 4679 of 2024

(Arising out of the Order dated 20.03.2024 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, Court-V in IA 828/2023 in C.P.(IB)- 2946/MB/2019).

Ramkumar Pal, Om Sai CHS, Flat No. 404, Ewing, Heernagar, Rahnal Village, Bhivandi Thane - 421308. ...Appellant

Versus 1. Bank of India Panchpakhdi Branch, Vandana House, Near Vandana Cinema, LBS Marg, Thane (W) -400602, Maharashtra ...Respondent No. 1 Email: legal.navimumbai@bankofindia.co.in

2. Mr. Manish Lalji Dawda Resolution Professional of Wadhwa Buildcon LLP C/o: 205A, 2nd Floor, Hiren Light Industrial Estate, Behind Johnson & Johnson, Bhagoji Kheer Marg, Mahim West Mumbai Maharashtra- 400016 Email: ip.dawdamanish@gmail.com , cirpwbl@gmail.com ...Respondent No. 2

3. Mr. Prabhat Jain Authorised representative of Financial Creditors in class of Homebuyers, C-601, Dream Veeroday Soc, Tulja Bhawani Nagar, Khardi, Blueberry Build, Pune-110014, Maharashtra

Page 3 of 41 Email: ip.caprabhatjain@gmail.com ...Respondent No. 3 4. Mr. Vishal Parab, COC Member of Wadhwa Buildcon LLP 104, First Floor, A wing, Wadhwa Meadows, Opp. B Ward, Kalyan Thane, Maharashtra-421301 Email: vishalparab2888@gmail.com ...Respondent No. 4 5. Mr. Vishal Patil COC Member of Wadhwa Buildcon LLP 104, First Floor, A wing, Wadhwa Meadows, Opp. B Ward, Kalyan Thane, Maharashtra-421301 Email: vishalpatil841111@gmail.com ...Respondent No. 5 6. Capri Global Capital Limited COC Member of Wadhwa Buildcon LLP 502, Tower- A, Peninsula Business Park Tower, A, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013 Maharashtra Email: sushil.gupta@capriglobal.in, bhupinder.singh@capriglobal.in ...Respondent No. 6 7. Ankit Suresh Wadhwa Suspended Partner of Wadhwa Buildcon LLP & Shivansh Palace, Near Wadhwa Heights, Godrej Hill, Near Shankar Mandir, Barave Gaon, Kalyan- 421301 Maharashtra ...Respondent No. 7

Present For Appellants: Mr. Sandeep Bajaj, Mr. Vipul Gai & Ms. Saumya, Advocates.

For Respondent: Ms. Aditi Sharma & Mr. Maulik Choksi, for RP. Mr. Aditya Kumar & Ms. Ila Nath, for R-1.

Page 4 of 41 JUDGEMENT

( 21.11.2025)

NARESH SALECHA, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

1. There are two appeals before us filed by the Appellants i.e., Ankit Suresh

Wadhwa, who is Suspended Partner of Wadhwa Buildcon LLP & Proposed

Resolution Applicant, in Comp. App. (AT) (INS) No. 828 of 2024 and Rajkumar

Pal, who is Power of Attorney Holder of Homebuyers, in Comp. App. (AT) (INS)

No. 1298 of 2024 under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016

('Code') against the same Impugned Order dated 20.03.2024 passed by the

National Company Law Tribunal Bench, Mumbai Bench, Court-V

("Adjudicating Authority") in I.A. No. 828/2023 in C.P.(IB)-2946/MB/2019.

2. The details of the Respondents in Comp. App. (AT) (INS) No. 828 of 2024

are as follows:

Bank of India is the Respondent No.1 herein.

Mr. Manish Lalji Dawda (previously Mr. Vishal Ghisulal Jain), who is the

Resolution Professional of Wadhwa Buildcon LLP, is the Respondent No.2

herein.

Mr. Prabhat Jain, who is the Authorised representative of Financial

Creditors in class of Homebuyers, is the Respondent No.3 herein.

Mr. Vishal Parab, who is one of the CoC Member of Wadhwa Buildcon

LLP, is the Respondent No.4 herein.

Page 5 of 41 Mr. Vishal Patil, who is one of the CoC Member of Wadhwa Buildcon

LLP, is the Respondent No.5 herein.

Capri Global Capital Limited who is one of the CoC Member of Wadhwa

Buildcon LLP, is the Respondent No.6 herein.

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India, is the Respondent No.7 herein.

3. The details of the Respondents in Comp. App. (AT) (INS) No. 1298 of

2024 are as follows:

Bank of India is the Respondent No.1 herein.

Mr. Manish Lalji Dawda (previously Mr. Vishal Ghisulal Jain), who is the

Resolution Professional of Wadhwa Buildcon LLP, is the Respondent No.2

herein.

Mr. Prabhat Jain, who is the Authorised representative of Financial

Creditors in class of Homebuyers, is the Respondent No.3 herein.

Mr. Vishal Parab, who is one of the CoC Member of Wadhwa Buildcon

LLP, is the Respondent No.4 herein.

Mr. Vishal Patil who, is one of the CoC Member of Wadhwa Buildcon

LLP, is the Respondent No.5 herein.

Capri Global Capital Limited, who is one of the CoC Member of Wadhwa

Buildcon LLP, is the Respondent No.6 herein.

Ankit Suresh Wadhwa, who is Suspended Partner of Wadhwa Buildcon

LLP, is the Respondent 7 herein and is the Appellant in the connected appeal

(Comp. App. (AT) (INS) No. 828 of 2024).

Page 6 of 41 4. These two related appeals have been filed by different Appellants, but they

make almost the similar arguments. Hence, we will examine the pleadings in

combined manner for sake of convenience, brevity and meaningful discussion.

5. Both the Appellants submitted that M/s. Wadhwa Buildcon LLP

(hereinafter referred to as "the Corporate Debtor") is a limited liability

partnership engaged in the business of real estate development and construction

of residential and commercial properties. The Appellants brought out that since

its inception, the Corporate Debtor has successfully executed several projects

and, over time, diversified its operations within the real estate sector. However,

owing to an unprecedented financial downturn and liquidity constraints

prevailing in the construction industry, the Corporate Debtor faced financial

stress and defaulted in repayment of the financial assistance availed from

Respondent No. 1, Bank of India. The Appellants alleged that the Bank of India/

Respondent No.1, without affording any reasonable opportunity for restructuring

or repayment, initiated proceedings under Section 7 of the Code, which was

admitted by the Adjudicating Authority, vide Impugned Order dated 28.07.2020,

thereby commencing the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process ("CIRP") of

the Corporate Debtor.

6. The Appellants submitted that pursuant to the said order, Mr. Rakesh

Kumar Tulsyan was appointed as the Interim Resolution Professional ("IRP") to

carry out the functions prescribed under the Code. The IRP issued a public

announcement dated 30.07.2020 in Form A under Regulation 6 of the Insolvency

Page 7 of 41 Resolution Process Regulations, inviting the creditors of the Corporate Debtor to

submit their respective claims. The first meeting of the Committee of Creditors

("CoC") was convened on 27.08.2020, wherein the Bank of India, being the sole

financial creditor, whose claim had been verified at that stage, held 100% voting

share. During the said meeting, the CoC deliberated on the business operations of

the Corporate Debtor, including its ongoing projects, namely Wadhwa Rhodesia

and Wadhwa Florence Pearl at Bhiwandi and Wadhwa Regalia at Kalyan (East)

and further recorded that the Wadhwa Rhodesia project, mortgaged with the

Bank, had unsold inventory of 72 flats apart from those committed to landowners

under registered agreements.

7. The Appellants further submitted that in the first meeting itself, the CoC

resolved to replace the IRP and appoint Mr. Vishal Ghisulal Jain as the Resolution

Professional ("RP") which was confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority vide

order dated 14.10.2020. The RP thereafter undertook the management of the

Corporate Debtor and continued to convene CoC meetings at regular intervals in

accordance with the Code. During the 2nd and 3rd CoC meetings, the RP apprised

the members regarding the urgent requirement of interim finance to maintain the

Corporate Debtor as a going concern and also suggested that bridge funding

would be necessary for completion of pending construction work and for

preserving the value of the assets.

8. The Appellants stated that during the 4th CoC meeting held on 06.11.2020,

it was resolved to publish Form G inviting Expressions of Interest ("EoIs") from

Page 8 of 41 Prospective Resolution Applicants ('PRA'). The CoC also finalised the eligibility

criteria for submission of EoIs and pursuant to the publication of Form G on

20.11.2020, the RP received five EoIs, including one from the present Appellant

i.e Mr. Ankit Suresh Wadhwa in Comp. App AT (Ins) No.828 of 2024. The

Appellant, being the suspended partner of the Corporate Debtor, sought to revive

the business by proposing a viable Resolution Plan in accordance with the IBC

framework.

9. The Appellants submitted that the 5th CoC meeting held on 09.12.2020,

approved the Request for Resolution Plan ("RFRP") and the Evaluation Matrix

and fixed the last date for submission of Resolution Plan as 31.01.2021. In

compliance with the same, Mr. Ankit Suresh Wadhwa submitted his Resolution

Plan on 21.01.2021, accompanied by all necessary documents including the

affidavit of eligibility under Section 29A of the Code.

10. The Appellants stated that by the 6th CoC meeting held on 25.03.2021, the

CoC had been reconstituted upon acceptance of claims filed by landowners who

were recognised as homebuyers/allottees. This reconstitution altered the voting

shares, with the Bank of India's share reduced to 19.97% and that of homebuyers

including land owners share increased to 79.70%.

11. The two Resolution Plans had been received i.e., one from the Appellant

Mr. Ankit Suresh Wadhwa and another from Mr. Hari and Mr. Bhagwandas

Mulchandani. The Appellants submitted that the 7th CoC meeting was convened

on 29.04.2021, wherein both Resolution Applicants submitted their plans. The

Page 9 of 41 Appellants stated that the Respondent No.1/Bank of India, however, objected to

the reconstitution of the CoC, contending that the inclusion of landowners as

financial creditors was incorrect. Consequently, the Bank of India filed IA

No. 1035/MB/2021 before the Adjudicating Authority challenging such inclusion

of land owners in the CoC and by the order dated 08.09.2021, the Adjudicating

Authority allowed the application of the Bank of India and excluded the

landowners from the CoC. The Appellants stated that the said order was

challenged by the landowners before this Appellate Tribunal in Company Appeal

(AT) (Insolvency) No. 821 of 2021 and this Appellate Tribunal stayed the

operation of the impugned order on 08.10.2021, thereby restoring the status quo

ante and allowing the landowners to continue as financial creditors.

Subsequently, the CoC resumed its meetings, and in its 8th meeting held on

15.09.2021, it recorded the revised composition: Bank of India (43.63%), Capri

Global Capital Ltd. (5.60%), and homebuyers as financial creditors in a class

(50.71%). The homebuyers appointed Mr. Prabhat Jain as their Authorised

Representative, whose appointment was later approved by the Adjudicating

Authority on 20.04.2022.

12. The Appellants submitted that during the pendency of these proceedings,

several CoC meetings were held where the viability of the pending projects and

the financial structure were extensively deliberated. The CoC recognised the need

for revising the Resolution Plans in view of the time elapsed, increase in costs,

and inclusion of additional creditors. In its 10th meeting held on 25.03.2022, the

Page 10 of 41 CoC resolved to permit existing Resolution Applicants to submit revised

Resolution Plans within 30 days from the date of receipt of the updated

Information Memorandum. This resolution was approved by 68.20% voting

share.

13. In pursuance of the said decision Mr. Ankit Suresh Wadhwa submitted a

revised Resolution Plan on 11.11.2022, which reflected updated financials,

inclusion of additional creditors, and a feasible implementation structure.

Mr. Ankit Suresh Wadhwa submitted that the revised plan was not a fresh plan

but merely an updated version of the plan originally submitted on 21.01.2021,

consistent with the CoC's mandate.

14. The Appellants stated that during 15th meeting, the CoC considered the

Appellant's revised Resolution Plan dated 11.11.2022 and after detailed

deliberation, approved the same with 66.64% majority. The then RP accordingly

filed an application before the Adjudicating Authority under Section 30(6) of the

Code seeking approval of the Resolution Plan submitted by Mr. Ankit Suresh

Wadhwa. While the said application was pending Respondent No. 1, Bank of

India, filed IA No. 828/2023 seeking rejection of the CoC approved Resolution

Plan and replacement of the RP on the ground that Mr. Ankit Suresh Wadhwa

was ineligible under Section 29A of the Code, claiming that his CIBIL report

contained entries labelling him as a "wilful defaulter." The Appellants submitted

that this contention is factually and legally untenable as no communication or

Page 11 of 41 order classifying Mr. Ankit Suresh Wadhwa as a wilful defaulter had been issued

in accordance with the RBI's Master Circular.

15. Mr. Ankit Suresh Wadhwa further submitted that upon being made aware

of this issue, he filed appropriate proceedings challenging the purported

classification and had demonstrated before the Adjudicating Authority that the

dues had been fully paid prior to the impugned order. Despite these facts, the

Adjudicating Authority erroneously concluded that Mr. Ankit Suresh Wadhwa

was ineligible under Section 29A of the Code on 11.11.2022 and rejected the

Resolution Plan, submitted by Mr. Ankit Suresh Wadhwa ignoring that the

eligibility must be assessed as on 21.01.2021, when the original plan was

submitted pursuant to the invitation under Section 25(2)(h) of the Code.

16. The Appellants stated that the Adjudicating Authority's finding that the

revised plan constituted a "fresh" plan is perverse, as the revision was permitted

by the CoC in exercise of its commercial wisdom and under the express authority

of Regulation 39(1A) of the CIRP Regulations. The revision did not alter the

fundamental structure of the plan but merely reflected updated information and

financial adjustments. The Appellants further submits that the Resolution Plan

conformed to Section 30(2) of the Code and the CIRP Regulations.

17. It is the case of the Appellants that the reliance placed on Section 29 A of

the Code is misconceived, as Mr. Ankit Suresh Wadhwa was allegedly declared

as a willful defaulter by IndiaBulls on 30.10.2022, however, the Adjudicating

Authority has erred in treating 11.11.2022 as the date of submission of the fresh

Page 12 of 41 Resolution Plan, despite the fact that the Resolution Plan was first submitted on

21.01.2021. It is the case of the Appellants that PRAs were permitted to submit

'Revised' Resolution Plans in the 11th CoC Meeting owing to a considerable

lapse of time since the initial submission on 21.01.2021 and subsequently, revised

Resolution Plan was received by the then RP from Mr. Ankit Suresh Wadhwa.

The Appellants submitted that it is a settled legal position, as held in Arcelor

Mittal India Pvt. Ltd. v. SatishKumar Gupta [(2019) 2 SCC 1 (Para 43)], that

the Resolution Applicants must be eligible under Section 29 A of the Code at the

time of submission of the Resolution Plan, which in this case was 21.01.2021. It

is submitted that a revised Resolution Plan would not shift the original date of

submission for determining the eligibility under Section 29A. Moreover, it is

submitted that for submission of a fresh Resolution Plan, a fresh Form-G is

mandatorily required to be issued, and therefore, in absence of issuance of a fresh

Form-G, the subsequent submissions can only be treated as 'revised' Resolution

Plan. Accordingly, Mr. Ankit Suresh Wadhwa submitted its Resolution Plan first

on 21.01.2021, and he was fully eligible as on the relevant date of Plan

submission, and Section 29A could not have been invoked to his detriment.

18. The Appellants submitted that the impugned order undermines the

commercial wisdom of the CoC by questioning the decision of a majority of

financial creditors, including a large body of homebuyers. The Appellants

highlighted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Appellate Tribunal have

Page 13 of 41 consistently held that the CoC's commercial wisdom is not to be interfered with

unless the plan violates the provisions of law, which is not the case here

19. The Appellants submitted that the Resolution Plan approved by the CoC

represents a fair, viable, and lawful revival of the Corporate Debtor, ensuring

protection of all stakeholders and maximisation of asset value. The impugned

order dated 20.03.2024 has derailed the CIRP, prejudiced the interests of

homebuyers, and unjustly deprived Mr. Ankit Suresh Wadhwa of the benefit of

an approved plan.

20. Concluding arguments, the Appellants requested this Appellate Tribunal

to allow both appeals and to set aside the Impugned Order, the Resolution Plan

approved by the CoC on 20.01.2023 be upheld.

21. Per contra, the Respondent No. 1, Bank of India and the main contesting

Respondent denied all the averments made by the Appellants as misleading and

baseless.

22. The respondent no.1 submitted that the appellants have sought to project

an incorrect factual and legal narrative with respect to the representation of

homebuyers and the role of their authorised representative, Shri Prabhat Jain. The

respondent no.1 stated that the said Shri Prabhat Jain was duly appointed as the

Authorised Representative (AR) of the homebuyers under Regulation 16A of the

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for

Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016, and continued to represent them both

before and after the passing of the impugned order. It was submitted that the

Page 14 of 41 minutes of the 16th, 17th, and 18th meetings of the CoC clearly establish that the

homebuyers were consistently represented through their duly appointed AR, and

never sought his replacement.

23. The respondent no.1 emphasised that a Power of Attorney or any similar

instrument cannot confer statutory status of an AR under the Code. Hence, the

appellant Mr. Rajkumar Pal in Comp App. (AT) (INS) No.1298 of 2024 who

claims to represent the homebuyers on the strength of a Power of Attorney is

wholly untenable and contrary to the statutory scheme of the Code. The

respondent no.1 therefore submitted that the Appellant Mr. Rajkumar Pal

intervention application (IA No. 3192/2023) was legally unsustainable and

rightly dismissed by the Adjudicating Authority.

24. The respondent no.1 further submitted that the present appeal Comp App.

(AT) (INS) No.1298 of 2024 is not directed against the dismissal of the Appellant

Mr. Rajkumar Pal intervention application (IA No. 3192/2023) but against the

subsequent order dated 20.03.2024 whereby the Adjudicating Authority rejected

the resolution plan of Mr. Ankit Suresh Wadhwa. The respondent no.1 stated that

without first assailing the order dismissing its intervention, the appellant Mr.

Rajkumar Pal in Comp App. (AT) (INS) No.1298 of 2024 cannot be permitted to

indirectly challenge the final order in IA No. 828/2023. The respondent no.1

submitted that it is a settled principle that when law prescribes a particular manner

for doing an act, it must be done in that manner alone or not at all. The Respondent

No.1 further contended that the Appellant Mr. Rajkumar Pal in Comp App. (AT)

Page 15 of 41 (INS) No.1298 of 2024, not being an AR under Regulation 16A, has no locus to

maintain this appeal or to make any submissions on behalf of the homebuyers.

The appeal Comp App. (AT) (INS) No.1298 of 2024, therefore, deserves to be

dismissed at the threshold on the ground of maintainability.

25. The respondent no.1 submitted that the allegation that the homebuyers

were not heard or represented before the Adjudicating Authority is factually

incorrect and legally untenable. It was stated that Mr. Prabhat Jain being the duly

appointed AR of the homebuyers, appeared through counsel before the

Adjudicating Authority, and the homebuyers were granted ample opportunity to

file written submissions, as recorded in the order dated 31.10.2023.

26. The respondent no.1 further submitted that the Adjudicating Authority

rightly rejected the resolution plan submitted by Mr. Ankit Suresh Wadhwa, the

Appellant in Comp App. (AT) (INS) No.828 of 2024 and Respondent No.7 in

Comp App. (AT) (INS) No.1298 of 2024 on the ground of ineligibility under

Section 29A of the Code. The Respondent No.1 stated that Mr. Ankit Suresh

Wadhwa has been declared a wilful defaulter as early as in October 2022, prior

to submitting his Resolution plan dated 11.11.2022, and therefore, was statutorily

disqualified from being an eligible resolution applicant.

27. The respondent no.1 contended that Clause 1.15 of the RFRP categorically

required that the resolution applicant must remain eligible under Section 29A of

the Code at three stages i.e., as on the date of submission, consideration, and

approval of the Resolution Plan, and that the applicant must submit a declaration

Page 16 of 41 of eligibility in the prescribed format at all stages. However, Mr. Ankit Suresh

Wadhwa failed to furnish any such affidavit with the final plan, rendering his plan

invalid in law.

28. The respondent no.1 submitted that the former RP failed to exercise due

diligence and circulated an incomplete and inadequate report on the eligibility of

the resolution applicants. The said report relied upon an affidavit of Mr. Ankit

Suresh Wadhwa dated 30.11.2020, which pertained to a prior plan, and failed to

verify the updated status of the resolution applicant under Section 29A of the

code. The respondent no.1 contended that the Adjudicating Authority, therefore,

correctly held that the Resolution plan submitted by Mr. Ankit Suresh Wadhwa

could not be considered.

29. The respondent no.1 contended that once a class of creditors is duly

represented through its authorised representative, the individual members of that

class cannot seek to be impleaded or heard separately, as that would defeat the

very purpose of representation under Regulation 16A.

30. The respondent no.1 submitted that the Appellant Mr. Rajkumar Pal in

Comp App. (AT) (INS) No.1298 of 2024 conduct in filing said appeal, after

failing in its intervention application, demonstrates a lack of bona fides and is

intended to obstruct the CIRP and therefore, the appeal is vexatious and filed in

collusion with the ineligible resolution applicant Mr. Ankit Suresh Wadhwa to

frustrate the lawful rejection of his Resolution plan.

Page 17 of 41

31. The respondent no.1 stated that the impugned order of the Adjudicating

Authority is a reasoned, well-considered order passed in strict conformity with

the provisions of the Code and the accompanying Regulations. The respondent

no.1 submitted that the order considers all relevant facts, records, and

submissions of the parties, and does not suffer from any infirmity or procedural

impropriety. The Respondent No.1 further submitted that the Adjudicating

Authority correctly applied the settled principle that a resolution plan submitted

by an ineligible person i.e. Mr. Ankit Suresh Wadhwa cannot be approved,

irrespective of the stage of the process. The rejection of the plan was thus in

accordance with law, and the present appeals, which seeks to reopen settled

issues, are devoid of substance.

32. Concluding his arguments, the Respondent No.1 requested this Appellate

Tribunal to dismiss both the appeals.

33. The Respondent No. 2 submitted that he was not acting as the Resolution

Professional at the time when the Resolution Plan submitted by Mr. Ankit Suresh

was approved by the CoC and subsequently rejected by the Adjudicating

Authority vide the impugned order dated 20.03.2024. The present Respondent

No.2 was impleaded in present Appeals pursuant to the order dated 14.11.2024

of this Appellate Tribunal and is filing this reply in compliance with the directions

of this Appellate Tribunal dated 14.08.2025. The Respondent No.2 submitted that

his submissions are based solely on records available to the present RP.

Page 18 of 41

34. The Respondent No. 2 submitted that pursuant to the public announcement

issued under Regulation 6 of the CIRP Regulations, the then IRP received and

verified claims from the sole financial creditor, Bank of India, amounting to

₹32,57,14,026/-, which were duly admitted in full within the prescribed timelines.

The IRP thereafter filed before the Adjudicating Authority a list of creditors and

a report certifying the constitution of the CoC as on 18.08.2020, comprising

solely of Bank of India holding 100% voting share. Subsequent to such

constitution, the first CoC meeting was convened on 27.08.2020, wherein the IRP

apprised the CoC regarding the business operations of the Corporate Debtor

engaged in real estate development, including three ongoing projects -- Wadhwa

Rhodesia at Bhiwandi (351 units, of which 112 belonged to the landlord and 72

remained unsold), Wadhwa Regalia at Kalyan (East) (under joint development in

a 50:50 ratio with construction stalled), and Wadhwa Florence Pearl at Bhiwandi

(construction yet to commence).

35. The Respondent No.2 submitted that the erstwhile RP published Form G

on 20.11.2020 inviting EoI, pursuant to which five EOIs were received, and

subsequently two eligible PRAs--(i) Mr. Ankit Suresh Wadhwa (the promoter of

the Corporate Debtor) and (ii) Mr. Hari Mulchandani and Mr. Bhagwandas

Mulchandani--submitted their Resolution Plans on 21.01.2021 and 27.02.2021

respectively. Both plans were opened during the 7th CoC meeting held on

29.04.2021; however, since the erstwhile RP had admitted the claims of certain

landlords as homebuyer-allottees, their inclusion resulted in a reduction of Bank

Page 19 of 41 of India's voting share from 100% to 79.35%. The Bank raised objections to the

admission of such claims and declined to participate in the discussions on the

Resolution Plans, alleging that the Resolution Plans were irregular.

36. The Respondent No. 2 submitted that during the pendency of the CIRP,

Bank of India filed an application before the Adjudicating Authority challenging

the admission of claims filed by certain landowners as financial creditors. The

said application was allowed vide order dated 08.09.2021, directing the then RP

to reconstitute the CoC. In compliance therewith, the 8th CoC meeting was

convened on 15.09.2021 and it was observed that claims of 45 homebuyers had

been admitted by the erstwhile RP beyond the statutory period of ninety days

from the insolvency commencement date, even though the amendment to

Regulation 12 of the CIRP Regulations permitting late submission of claims came

into effect only in September 2023. The CoC, after such reconstitution, comprised

Bank of India (Rs. 32.57 crores - 43.69% voting share), Capri Global Capital

Limited (Rs. 4.18 crores - 5.60% voting share), and homebuyers as financial

creditors in a class (Rs. 37.79 crores - 50.71% voting share).

37. The Respondent No.2 submitted that meanwhile, the landowners preferred

an Appeal bearing Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 821 of 2021 before

this Appellate Tribunal challenging the order dated 08.09.2021 passed by the

Adjudicating Authority allowing the Bank's application and this Appellate

Tribunal, vide order dated 19.09.2022, dismissed the Appeal, thereby upholding

Page 20 of 41 the order of the Adjudicating Authority and confirming the correctness of the

directions issued for reconstitution of the CoC.

38. The Respondent No. 2 submitted that during the 11th meeting of the CoC

held on 01.10.2022, it was observed that the two Resolution Plans earlier received

from the PRAs in January and February 2021 had become outdated due to the

considerable lapse of time. It was noted that the costs of construction had

escalated significantly and that there had been an increase in both the number of

homebuyers and their admitted claim amounts since the submission of the initial

plans. Considering these developments, the CoC resolved that revised Resolution

Plans be invited from the PRAs within 30 days of circulation of the revised

Information Memorandum. The Respondent No.2 pointed out that the earlier

Resolution Plans submitted by the PRAs were never deliberated upon or placed

for voting by the CoC, nor was any verification of their eligibility under Section

29A of the Code carried out at that stage.

39. The Respondent No.2 submitted that pursuant to the aforesaid resolution,

both the PRAs submitted their revised Resolution Plans in sealed envelopes on

11.11.2022. These plans were opened in the 13th CoC meeting convened on

17.12.2022, during which the erstwhile RP informed the CoC that the scrutiny of

Section 29A eligibility of the PRAs and the vetting of their plans for compliance

with the Code would first be undertaken. Only upon satisfaction of such

compliance, the plans would be placed before the CoC for consideration and

voting. It was during this period that the Mr. Ankit Suresh Wadhwa was officially

Page 21 of 41 declared a "wilful defaulter" by Indiabulls Housing Finance Limited in

connection with the loan availed by his company, thereby rendering Mr. Ankit

Suresh Wadhwa ineligible under Section 29A of the Code to submit or participate

in any Resolution Plan process.

40. The Respondent No. 2 submitted that notwithstanding the above, the

erstwhile RP, based on the Section 29A verification report then available, found

Mr. Ankit Suresh Wadhwa to be eligible and invited him to present the terms of

his Resolution Plan before the CoC in the 14th meeting. Detailed discussions and

deliberations ensued, during which both the PRAs addressed the queries raised

by the CoC members and upon conclusion of the discussions, the CoC advised

both PRAs to submit further revised plans incorporating suggestions and

requirements of the creditors. Accordingly, in the 15th CoC meeting held on

20.01.2023, the comparative evaluation matrix of the two revised Resolution

Plans was presented by the erstwhile RP, and after detailed consideration, both

plans were placed before the CoC for voting.

41. The Respondent No. 2 submitted that in the 15th meeting of the CoC held

on 20.01.2023, the Resolution Plan submitted by Mr. Ankit Suresh Wadhwa was

approved with a voting share of 66.64%, predominantly by the class of

homebuyers. On the same day, Bank of India raised objections to the said

approval. Pursuant to such approval, the erstwhile RP filed IA No. 402 of 2023

before the Adjudicating Authority seeking approval of the Resolution Plan under

Section 30(6) of the Code. Subsequently, Bank of India filed IA No. 828 of 2023

Page 22 of 41 opposing the plan on the ground that the proposed Successful Resolution

Applicant (SRA) was declared a wilful defaulter and was, therefore, ineligible to

submit a Resolution Plan under Section 29A of the Code. Upon hearing both

applications, the Adjudicating Authority, vide detailed order dated 20.03.2024,

rejected the Resolution Plan approved by the CoC, extended the CIRP period by

180 days, and directed the RP to invite fresh EoIs.

42. The Respondent No. 2 submitted that following the rejection of the

Resolution Plan by the Adjudicating Authority vide order dated 20.03.2024, the

17th meeting of the CoC was convened on 24.04.2024, wherein the agenda for

replacement of the erstwhile RP was discussed. However, no voting was

conducted on the said agenda. In compliance with the order rejecting the plan and

extending the CIRP period by 180 days, the erstwhile RP published fresh Form

G on 11.05.2024, inviting EoIs with the last date for submission of Resolution

Plans fixed as 25.07.2024. Meanwhile, the Mr. Ankit Suresh Wadhwa, being

aggrieved by the rejection of his plan, preferred the present Appeal, in which this

Appellate Tribunal, vide order dated 10.05.2024, directed that the CIRP process

may continue but that no Resolution Plan shall be put to vote during the pendency

of the Appeal.

43. The respondent no.2 stated that the Bank of India had filed an application

being IA No. 2265 of 2024 before the Adjudicating Authority seeking

replacement of the erstwhile RP, Mr. Vishal Jain. The said application was

initially deferred during the hearing held on 25.06.2024, as the erstwhile RP had

Page 23 of 41 undertaken before the Adjudicating Authority to convene a meeting of the CoC

on the same day and to place the agenda for his replacement before the CoC for

voting. The respondent no.2 submitted, however, that the said undertaking was

never honoured, as the erstwhile RP, failed to place the agenda for his

replacement before the CoC and did not circulate the minutes of the 18th CoC

meeting. Consequently, the Adjudicating Authority, while recording adverse

remarks on the conduct of the erstwhile RP allowed the said application and

appointed the present respondent No.2, Mr. Manish Dawda, as the Resolution

Professional of the Corporate Debtor vide order dated 02.07.2024.

44. The respondent no.2 further submitted that pursuant to his appointment, he

convened the 19th meeting of the CoC on 07.08.2024. During the said meeting,

the issue of handover from the erstwhile RP was discussed in detail. The

respondent no.2 apprised the CoC that no proper or complete handover had been

effected by the erstwhile RP, particularly in relation to the documents and records

pertaining to the CIRP and the publication of the earlier Form G. It was further

discussed that due to the absence of a proper handover, the present Respondent

No.2 was not in possession of the complete set of documents and that two PRAs

had also approached the Respondent No. 2 seeking refund of their EMDs. In light

of these irregularities, the Respondent no.2 informed the CoC that it would be

appropriate to publish a fresh Form G to ensure a transparent and lawful

resolution process.

Page 24 of 41

45. The respondent no.2 stated that the erstwhile RP, aggrieved by his removal,

filed an appeal before this Tribunal bearing Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.

1613 of 2024, challenging the order dated 02.07.2024. The said appeal came to

be dismissed vide order dated 28.08.2024, whereby this Tribunal directed the

respondent no.2 to place the agenda for removal of the erstwhile RP before the

CoC for voting. The respondent no.2 further submitted that upon perusal of the

additional affidavit filed by the erstwhile RP in the said appeal, several grave

discrepancies and irregularities came to light. In consequence, the present

respondent no.2 undertook a re-verification of the claims admitted by the

erstwhile RP, based on which the CoC had been previously constituted. During

this exercise, the respondent no.2 discovered numerous incomplete, fictitious, and

even forged claims.

46. The Respondent no.2 submitted that in view of the aforementioned

irregularities, he reconstituted the CoC by verifying and admitting only the

genuine claims. Revised lists of creditors were filed from time to time before the

Adjudicating Authority as the claims were scrutinized and admitted.

47. The Respondent no.2 stated that in the 20th meeting of the CoC held on

04.10.2024, a resolution was proposed for the replacement of the erstwhile RP

and for confirmation of the appointment of Mr. Manish Lalji Dawda (Respondent

No.2 herein) as the Resolution Professional, in compliance with the order dated

28.08.2024 passed by this Appellate Tribunal. The said resolution was duly

approved by the CoC with a voting share of 69%. The respondent no.2 further

Page 25 of 41 submitted that in the same meeting, the CoC also approved, by 100% voting

share, the proposal to republish Form G, along with the eligibility criteria, the

Request for Resolution Plan (RFRP), and the Evaluation Matrix.

48. The respondent no.2 stated that pursuant to the said resolution, a fresh

Form G was published on 22.10.2024 inviting EoIs from PRAs. In response,

twelve EoIs were received, out of which eleven applicants were declared eligible

in the final list of PRAs issued on 28.11.2024.

49. The respondent no.2 submitted that before the last date of submission,

resolution plans were received from two PRAs, including Mr. Ankit Suresh

Wadhwa. The plans were opened during the 24th CoC meeting held on

15.02.2025, and the PRAs were invited to discuss their respective plans. The CoC

also passed a resolution to appoint professionals for vetting of the resolution plans

and conducting verification under Section 29A of the Code. However, the said

plans could not be put to vote owing to the interim stay order dated 10.05.2024

passed by this Appellate Tribunal in the captioned appeal.

50. The respondent no.2 stated that after the fresh publication of Form G,

Mr. Ankit Suresh Wadhwa, once again submitted his EoI on 31.10.2024 and was

duly declared eligible under Section 29A of the Code, as per the due diligence

conducted by M/s Dcirrus. Consequently, a fresh resolution plan dated

17.03.2025 was submitted by the appellant, which was opened before the CoC

during its 24th meeting. The respondent no.2 further stated that by letter dated

05.02.2025, Mr. Ankit Suresh Wadhwa requested that his earlier Earnest Money

Page 26 of 41 Deposits (EMD) of ₹50,000 (04.12.2020), ₹5,00,000 (20.02.2021), and

₹50,00,000 (27.01.2023), aggregating to ₹55,50,000, be adjusted towards the

EMD required for the new plan submitted on 07.02.2025. The Respondent No.2

submitted that in these circumstances, the resolution plan under challenge in the

present appeal, in a manner stands withdrawn by Mr. Ankit Suresh Wadhwa

himself as has already participated in the fresh round of bidding after curing his

earlier ineligibility arising from his status as a wilful defaulter.

51. The respondent no.2 stated that the appellant's new plan can now be

considered afresh by the CoC along with other eligible plans through the due

process of law. Therefore, no prejudice would be caused to either the appellants

or any other stakeholder, if the present appeals are disposed of as infructuous,

thereby allowing the resolution process to progress unhindered and in accordance

with law.

52. Concluding his arguments, the Respondent No.2 requested this Appellate

Tribunal to dismiss both appeals.

Findings

53. We have already noted the facts while recording the submissions of the

parties.

54. The appeals move in the limited compass, on the issue that whether Mr.

Ankit Suresh Wadhwa, the Resolution Applicant was wilful defaulter at the

relevant period of consideration of Resolution Plan by the CoC or not. Another

Page 27 of 41 linked issue is whether eligibility criteria stipulated was required to be complied

with at all three stages i.e., at the time of submission of Resolution Plan, at the

time of consideration of Resolution Plan as well as at the stage of approval of the

Resolution Plan, keeping in view clause 1.15 of RFRP as well as undertaking

affidavit given by all PRAs including, Mr. Ankit Suresh Wadhwa with all such

terms and conditions of RFRP.

55. To recapitulate the series of events and impact on present appeal, the

following dates become relevant :-

(a) On 30.07.2018, the Corporate Debtor was declared as NPA on 30.07.2018,

(b) On 28.07.2020, CIRP was initiated against the Corporate Debtor.

(c) On 20.11.2020 Form- 'G' was issued.

(d) On 30.11.2020 Mr. Ankit Suresh Wadhwa filed affidavit for compliance

of Section 29A.

(e) RFRP/ IM was issued on 15.12.2020.

(f) On 21.01.2021, first Plan was submitted by Mr. Ankit Suresh Wadhwa on

21.01.2021 for Rs. 8.19 Crore.

(g) On 30.10.2022, Mr. Ankit Suresh Wadhwa was declared as a wilful

defaulter for non payment of some credit facilities to India Bulls Housing.

(h) On 11.11.2022, Mr. Ankit Suresh Wadhwa gave new/ revised plan for

Rs. 13,66,06,635/-.

(i) On 20.01.2023, Mr. Ankit Suresh Wadhwa submitted his final Resolution

Plan of Rs. 14.93 Crores.

Page 28 of 41

56. It is the case of the Appellants that in terms of Section 29A of the Code

Mr. Ankit Suresh Wadhwa was required to be eligible only at the time of his

initial submission of Resolution Plan which he gave on 21.01.2021. The

Appellants emphasised during pleading before us that Mr. Ankit Suresh Wadhwa

did not come to know about the status of wilful defaulter, which in any case

happened on 30.10.2022 and further submitted that the same was more of

technical nature and more significantly Mr. Ankit Suresh Wadhwa paid the

outstanding dues to the Financial Creditor.

57. Mr. Ankit Suresh Wadhwa submitted that since his original plan submitted

on 21.01.2021 was in compliance with Section 29A of the Code (he was declared

as wilful defaulter at a much later stage on 30.11.2022), he could not have been

rendered ineligible on subsequent dates when he only gave revised Resolution

Plan as asked by the CoC.

58. The case of Mr. Ankit Suresh Wadhwa mainly relies on the fact that the

subsequent plan submitted by him i.e., on 11.11.2012 as well as 19.01.2023 were

in fact continuation of his initial plan submitted on 21.01.2021 and therefore,

subsequent plans were in nature of revised Resolution Plan and not fresh Plan as

alleged by the Respondent No. 1 / Bank of India as well as incorrectly held by the

Adjudicating Authority.

59. On the other hand, it is the case of the Respondent No. 1/ Bank of India

that the PRAs including, Mr. Ankit Suresh Wadhwa was duty bound to comply

with Section 29A of the Code at all three stages and Mr. Ankit Suresh Wadhwa

Page 29 of 41 failed to do so. It is further the case of the Respondent No. 1/ Bank of India that

Mr. Ankit Suresh Wadhwa was supposed to give undertaking affidavit in terms

of Clause 1.15 at every time of his Resolution Plan, which again he failed to do

so.

60. The Respondent No. 1/ bank of India submitted that how can CoC trust the

already declared wilful defaulter and how such Resolution Plan submitted by

alleged wilful defaulter can be treated as viable and implementable.

61. At this stage, we take into consideration Section 29A of the Code which

reads as under :-

"Section 29A Persons not eligible to be resolution applicant. -

A person shall not be eligible to submit a resolution plan, if such person, or any other person acting jointly or in concert with such person--

......

(b) is a wilful defaulter in accordance with the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India issued under the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (10 of 1949);

240A. Application of this Code to micro, small and medium enterprises. -

(1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Code, the provisions of clauses (c) and (h) of section 29A shall not apply to the resolution applicant in respect of corporate insolvency resolution process [or prepackaged insolvency resolution process/ of any micro, small and medium enterprises....."

Page 30 of 41

(Emphasis Supplied)

62. We note that the RFRP was approved by the CoC in its fifth meeting, and

the Appellant Mr. Ankit Suresh Wadhwa being a member of the COC did not

raise any objection to any clause of the RFRP. In terms of clause 1.15 of the

RFRP, the appellant duly acknowledged that he had to be eligible under section

29-A on: (1) the date of submission of the plan; (2) on the date of its consideration

by the CoC; and (3) also on the date of its approval by the Adjudicating Authority.

At this stage, we take into consideration Clause 1.15 pf RFRP, which reads as

under:

Clause 1.15 Disclosure

The Resolution Applicant(s) acknowledges that he has to be eligible under section 29A of the IBC (as amended from time to time) as on the date of submission of the Resolution Plan consideration of its Resolution Plan by the CoC and its sanction by the Adjudicating Authority and shall make the necessary disclosure in the Resolution Plan. Each Resolution Applicant(s) is required to submit an Affidavit of eligibility under 29A of IBC, in a format set out in Appendix 10 (Affidavit) along with the Resolution Plan.

(Emphasis supplied)

63. From above Clause 1.15 of RFRP, we note that the PRAs confirmed that

they need to be eligible under Section 29A of the Code at all three stages :-

(a) On the date of submission of Resolution Plan.

(b) On the date of consideration of Resolution Plan by the CoC.

Page 31 of 41 (c) On the date of sanction by the Adjudicating Authority.

64. We also note that the PRAs were obligated (the word 'shall' has been used

in Clause 1.15) to make the necessary disclosures in the Resolution Plan,

whenever Resolution Plan was submitted.

65. We also note that each PRA was required to submit an affidavit of

eligibility under Section 29A of the Code in the format prescribed in the

Appendix 10 alongwith Resolution Plan.

66. We take into consideration Regulation 39: Approval of resolution plan,

which reads as under:

"39. [(1) A prospective resolution applicant in the final list may submit resolution plan or plans prepared in accordance with the Code and these regulations to the resolution professional electronically within the time given in the request for resolution plans under regulation 36B along with

(a) an affidavit stating that it is eligible under section 29A to submit resolution plans;..........."

(Emphasis Supplied)

67. We note that regulation 39 (1) (a) mandates the submission of an affidavit

by the PRA, along with the resolution plan, affirming that he is not ineligible in

terms of section 29-A of the Code, and this statutory provision has been provided

in clause 1.15, and clause 1.14 read with clauses 1.14.3 and 1.14.5 (vi) & (xii) as

brought to our notice during pleading

Page 32 of 41

68. In this regard, we note that the only affidavit ever submitted by Mr. Ankit

Suresh Wadhwa although, there were three different plans submitted by him was

dated 30/11/2020, i.e., even before submission of the first plan dated 21/01/2021.

Thus, the mandatory condition of submission of an affidavit along with the plan

was never complied with by Mr. Ankit Suresh Wadhwa in respect of any of the

plans, and accordingly, none of the plan submitted by him.

69. We also note that the issue of submission of resolution plan is dealt with

by section 30 of the Code, and section 30 (2) stipulate duty upon the RP to

confirm that each plan presented before the CoC is compliant with extant law, as

also clause 1.4.1 of the RFRP, further section 30 (3) of the Code mandates

presentation to the CoC of only such plans which conform to the conditions in

section 30 (2) and regulation 39 (1B) (c) categorically stipulates that the CoC

shall not consider any plan which does not comply with the provisions of section

30 (2) and regulation 39 (1).

70. Thus, it was for the Former RP to conduct due diligence qua section 29-

A, in terms of regulation 36A (8), as also clauses 1.4.1, 1.1.8, 2.1.1 (b), and 2.1.3

of RFRP which apparently was not done by the Erstwhile RP.

71. We also take into consideration the submissions of the Respondent No.1

on a pure question of law which can be raised at any stage of the proceedings,

provided that no new facts are pleaded.

72. In this connection, we take into consideration the undertaking given by

Mr. Ankit Suresh Wadhwa, which reads as under :-

Page 33 of 41

73. Thus, after going through the pleadings of all stakeholders as well as

perusal of the various documents as discussed above and the provisions of the

Code, it becomes clear that the PRA including Mr. Ankit Suresh Wadhwa were

required of being complied to Section 29 A of the Code at three stages in terms

of Clause 1.15 of the RFRP. We also take note that the clear undertaking was

given by Mr. Ankit Suresh Wadhwa for such compliance at all three stages.

74. On the pointed query to Mr. Ankit Suresh Wadhwa, whether the said

Clause 1.15 of RFRP was challenged by him before the Adjudicating Authority,

the reply was in negative. It becomes, therefore, clear that Mr. Ankit Suresh

Wadhwa accepted the clause 1.15 of RFRP on his own accord and at such now

Mr. Ankit Suresh Wadhwa is not entitled to challenge the same on this ground.

75. We also take into consideration that the CoC kept on undergoing

challenges by inclusions of the claims of the land owners by the Erstwhile RP

Page 34 of 41 who was later replaced. It will be worthwhile to note that the Erstwhile RP

challenged the same before this Appellate Tribunal and the said application was

disposed, entitling the present new Respondent No. 2, namely, Mr. Manish Lalji

Dawda to step into shoes of Erstwhile RP Mr. Vishal Jain. We further take into

consideration the fact that the said land owners later challenged their exclusion

from CoC by the Adjudicating Authority before this Appellate Tribunal vide

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 821 of 2021 and the same was dismissed by this

Appellate Tribunal on 08.10.2021. Thus, it is undisputed fact that the land owners

who were initially included in the CoC were not entitled to participate and decide

on the Resolution Plan, PRAs ab-initio.

76. The Respondent No.1 has again and again emphasised that the Mr. Ankit

Suresh Wadhwa was ineligible on all three occasions, and even if for the sake of

argument, the plan dated 11/11/2022 is not considered to be a fresh plan, even

then, Mr. Ankit Suresh Wadhwa was ineligible on the subsequent two dates of

reckoning in terms of Clause 1.15 of RFRA. It has also been argued that PRA

who has been declared to be a wilful defaulter would certainly not be in any

position to implement the plan even if the same was approved, considering that

he would be blacklisted and effectively barred from availing institutional credit.

77. We note that Mr. Ankit Suresh Wadhwa has stated that he was not aware

of the fact that he had been declared a wilful defaulter and subsequently paid

outstanding money to Indiabulls. However, the statutory framework dealing with

declaration as wilful defaulter, contemplates strict adherence to the principles

Page 35 of 41

78. It is noted that the subject of RFRP is regulated by Regulation 36-B which

deals with the mandatory contents and procedure of an RFRP, the prohibitions

applicable, and multiple contingencies that may arise. During pleadings, both

parties conceded that there has never been any challenge qua any provision of the

RFRP, and to the contrary, Mr. Ankit Suresh Wadhwa unequivocally and

unconditionally accepted vide affidavit dated 30/11/2020, the conditions

contained in clause 1.15 with respect to ineligibility under 29-A, including

acquisition of any disability in the future and irrevocably bound himself to the

provisions of the RFRP in terms of the undertaking submitted as per clause 1.7.9,

read with clause 1 of Appendix II, of the RFRP. At this stage we take into

consideration the relevant portion of Affidavit filed by Mr. Ankit Suresh Wadhwa

which reads as under:

"10. That the Resolution Applicant agrees and undertakes to disclose/inform forthwith, to fee RP and the members of the CoC, if the Resolution Applicant becomes aware of any change in factual information in relation to it or its connected person (as defined under the Code) which would make it ineligible under any of the provisions of Section 29A of the Code at any stage of the corporate insolvency resolution process of the Company, after the submission of this affidavit.

11. That if, at any time after the submission of this affidavit and before the approval of the Resolution Applicant's resolution plan by fee Hon'ble National Company Law

Page 36 of 41 Tribunal under the Code, the Resolution Applicant becomes ineligible to be a resolution applicant as per the provisions of the Code (and in particular Section 29A of the Code), the fact of such ineligibility shall be forthwith brought to the attention of the RP and the CoC."

(Emphasis supplied)

Above affidavit is loud and clear and leaves no scope for ambiguity and

therefore we find that Mr. Ankit Suresh Wadhwa knew always that he has to

comply clause 1.15 of RFRP at all three stages and now at this stage can't take

plea that Section 29A was only relevant at EoI submission date.

79. We also take into consideration another portion of his affidavit which

reads as under:

"1. We, [Insert name of the Resolution Applicant(s)] ("Resolution Applicant(s)"), refer to the RFRP and provide our unconditional acceptance of the terms and conditions of the RFRP as amended from time to time in accordance with the procedure set out under the RFRP, including but not limited to the Disclaimer contained in the RFRP. Further and in relation to the said RFRP and the Resolution Plan Process set out there under, the Resolution Applicant(s) undertakes, agrees and acknowledges that the Resolution Applicant(s) (collectively, the "Undertaking"):

Page 37 of 41 a) shall execute all such deeds and documents as may be required to be so executed pursuant to the completion of the Resolution Plan Process;

b) has submitted the Binding Resolution Plan and other requisite documents strictly as per forms prescribed in the RFRP, without any deviations or conditions and without setting out any assumptions or notes qualifying the Resolution Plan; ................."

(Emphasis supplied)

We are of view that above affidavit again do not support cause of the Appellant.

80. We also take into consideration the fact that in similar cases where there

was no challenge to the RFRP, it has been categorically held by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the matter of SBI v. Murari Lal Jalan & Florian Fritsch

(Consortium), [(2025) 4 SCC 354 [Paragraph 109], as also by this Appellant

Tribunal in Rakesh Ranjan v. Fanendra Harakchand Munot, [(2023) SCC

OnLine NCLAT 2304 [Paragraph 11], that in addition to the fact that the plan has

to, at all times, be compliant with the provisions of the RFRP, and not challenging

the RFRP is also fatal to the case of the resolution applicant.

81. We also take into consideration the submission made by Bank of India/

Respondent No. 1 as well as Respondent No. 2 the current RP Mr. Manish Lalji

Dawda that there is no effective consideration of the Resolution Plan of

Mr. Ankit Suresh Wadhwa by the CoC.

Page 38 of 41

82. It has been brought out that plan of 21.01.2021 which was submitted before

the CoC on 25.03.2021 for approval, was neither discussed nor voted in any of

the CoC meetings. The CoC did not take into consideration this plan, as

substantial time had elapsed and many circumstances had changed during the

pendency of this prospective Plan with respect to the claims, intrinsic value of the

project, estimated cost escalation etc. etc. which directly or indirectly affected the

Resolution Plan amount. Subsequently afresh/revised Resolution plan was

submitted on 11.11.2022 on the asking of the COC and the same was opened in

the 13th CoC meeting on 17.12.2022. Thereafter, the RP stated that Section 29A

of the Code, eligibility of Successful Resolution Applicant shall be examined and

only thereafter the vetting of the Revised Plan shall be done if it is in compliance

of the Code and is fit to be placed before the CoC for approval. The Revised

Resolution Plan is in fact a new and fresh Resolution Plan and the earlier

Resolution Plan had no bearing on the Same as no eligibility of the SRA was

examined at that stage and neither was the plan placed before CoC for

consideration. The RP instead of filing the eligibility of the SRA u/s 29A of the

Code submitted that the Plan shall be placed before the CoC only if the same is

found to be in compliance with the Code. It is pertinent to mention that at the

behest of the India Bulls Housing, Resp. no. 6 the Resolution Applicant was

declared as 'wilful defaulter' on 31.10.2022 prior to the submission of the

Resolution Plan. Thus, it is evident that on the date of filing of the plan by the

Resolution Applicant i.e. 11.11.2022, Mr. Ankit Suresh Wadhwa was not eligible

Page 39 of 41 u/s 29A of the Code because of him having been declared as wilful defaulter on

31.10.2022.

83. The respondent no.2 stated that after the fresh publication of Form G, the

Appellant Mr. Ankit Suresh Wadhwa in Comp App (AT) (INS) No. 828 of 2024

once again submitted his EoI on 31.10.2024 and was duly declared eligible under

Section 29A of the Code, as per the due diligence conducted by M/s Dcirrus.

Consequently, a fresh resolution plan dated 17.03.2025 was submitted by the

appellant, which was opened before the CoC during its 24th meeting. The

respondent no.2 further stated that by letter dated 05.02.2025, Mr. Ankit Suresh

Wadhwa requested that his earlier Earnest Money Deposits (EMD) of ₹50,000

(04.12.2020), ₹5,00,000 (20.02.2021), and ₹50,00,000 (27.01.2023), aggregating

to ₹55,50,000, be adjusted towards the EMD required for the new plan submitted

on 07.02.2025. The Respondent No.2 submitted that in these circumstances the

resolution plan under challenge in the present appeal, in a manner stands

withdrawn by Mr. Ankit Suresh Wadhwa himself as he has already participated

in the fresh round of bidding after curing his earlier ineligibility arising from his

status as a wilful defaulter.

84. The respondent no.2 stated that Mr. Ankit Suresh Wadhwa new plan can

now be considered afresh by the CoC along with other eligible plans, following

the due process of law, therefore, no prejudice would be caused to either the

appellants or any other stakeholder, if the present appeals are disposed of as

Page 40 of 41 infructuous, thereby allowing the resolution process to progress unhindered in

accordance with law.

85. In these circumstances, we find that the PRAs themselves committed to the

requirement of compliance of Section 29A of the Code at all relevant stages and

now PRAs cannot seek an alternative prayer.

86. We further consciously take into consideration the recent developments

that since then new Form-G has been issued and Mr. Ankit Suresh Wadhwa has

again submitted Resolution Plan which is under consideration by the CoC.

87. Based on above detailed observations, we do not find any error in the

Impugned Order. The Appeals devoid of any merit, stand rejected. No cost. I.A.,

if any, are closed.

[Justice Mohammad Faiz Alam Khan] Member (Judicial)

[Mr. Naresh Salecha] Member (Technical)

Sim

Page 41 of 41