Shalini Sarawgi vs Small Industries Development Bank Of ...

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 958 of 2026 & I.A. No. 3818 of 2026

IN THE MATTER OF:

Shalini Sarawgi ...Appellant(s)

Versus

Small Industries Development Bank of India & Ors. ...Respondent(s) Present: For Appellant : Mr. Sumesh Dhawan, Mr. Jaskarna S. Bhatia, Mr. Shaurya Shyam, Ms. Varsha, Khyati Khemka, Sagar Thakkar, Kavya Tekkriwal, Ms. Ipshita Das, Advocates. For Respondents : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Agrawal, Ms. Pooja Agrawal, Advocates for Liquidator. Mohd. Moonis Abbasi, Adv. for R1

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode) 25.05.2026: Heard Ld. Counsel for the Appellant as well as Respondent

Bank.

2. This appeal has been filed against the order dated 10.04.2026 by which

order, the AA has allowed I.A. (IB) (LIQ.) No. 4/KB/2026 directing for

liquidation.

3. The Appellant was one of the resolution applicant and promoter who

has submitted a plan apart from the resolution plan by three other resolution

applicants. The CoC has held various meetings and in the 15th CoC meeting

rejected both resolution plans submitted by M/s Carbon Resources Private

Limited and M/s Balmukund Sponge & Iron Private Limited. In the 14th CoC

meeting the plan of the Appellant was found to be non-compliance and non-

responsive.

4. The Appellant challenged the order submits that other applicants were

given time to file addendum where no opportunity has been given to the

Appellant. Be that as it may, plan of the Appellant was found non-compliant

and no plan having been approved in the CIRP, liquidation is the only

consequence and the Adjudicating Authority has rightly directed the

liquidation of the CD.

5. Under Regulation 2B of the IBBI Liquidation Process Regulations, it is

open for the Appellant to submit a scheme, compromise or arrangement

within the period of 90 days from the order of liquidation which is provided in

Regulation 2B. Regulation 2B is as follows:-

"2B. Compromise or arrangement. (1) Where a compromise or arrangement is proposed under section 230 of the Companies Act, 2013 (18 of 2013), it shall be completed within ninety days of the order of liquidation under [***] section 33. Provided that a person, who is not eligible under the Code to submit a resolution plan for insolvency resolution of the corporate debtor, shall not be a party in any manner to such compromise or arrangement.

Provided further that the liquidator shall file the proposal of compromise or arrangement only in cases where such recommendation has been made by the committee under regulation 39BA of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016:

Provided further that the liquidator shall not file such proposal after expiry of thirty days from the liquidation commencement date.] (2) The time taken on compromise or arrangement, not exceeding ninety days, shall not be included in the liquidation period. (3) Any cost incurred by the liquidator in relation to compromise or arrangement shall be borne by the corporate debtor, where such compromise or arrangement is sanctioned by the Tribunal under sub-section (6) of section 230:

Provided that such cost shall be borne by the parties who proposed compromise or arrangement, where such compromise or arrangement is not sanctioned by the Tribunal under sub-section (6) of section 230.]"

6. The Appellant having already submitted resolution plan he is eligible to

submit scheme under Regulation 2B.

7. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant submits that he shall be submitting the

scheme within two weeks to the liquidator. It is further submitted by the

Appellant that the liquidator has fixed the date for auction of the assets which

has now been postponed. In event, the Appellant submits the scheme within

two weeks from today, the liquidator shall place the scheme before the

creditors for consideration and after decision on the scheme shall take

further. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Mr. Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) Sheetal/Manu