Soneko Marketing Private Limited vs Girish Sriram Juneja Rp & Anr

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1036 - 1038 of 2025 & I.A. No. 4068, 4069, 4070 of 2025 (Arising out of Order dated 30.04.2025, 10.06.2025 and 13.06.2025 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Kolkata Bench-2 in in IVN. P. No.5/KB/2025 in CP(IB) No.369(KB)2020)

IN THE MATTER OF: Soneko Marketing Private Limited 107, Stephen House, 6th floor, Kolkata-700001 ...Appellant Versus

1. Girish Sriram Juneja, Resolution Professional of Hindusthan National Glass & Industries Limited, 2, Red Cross Place, Kolkata- 700 001 2. The Committee of Creditors of Hindusthan National Glass & Industries Limited, C/O Ey Restructuring LLP, 14th Floor, The Ruby, Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar (West), Mumbai- 400 028. ...Respondents Present: For Appellant : Mr. Abhijeet Sinha, Mr. Aditya Shukla, Ms. Pratiksha Sharma, Ms. Ritu Chaudhary, Mr. Ayush Jain, Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Advocates For Respondents : Mr. Krishnendu Datta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vikram Wadehra, Ms. Smriti Churiwal, Mr. Jaiveer Kant, Advocates for R1 Mr. Arun Kathpalia, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sidhant Kant, Ms. Gayathri Balasubramanian, Advocates for R2- COC Mr. Rishav Banerjee, Mr. Utsav Trivedi, Ms. Kiran Sharma, Ms. Nanini Roy, Ms. Nandini Acharya, Advocates for Independent Sugar Corporation Ltd.

JUDGMENT

ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.

This Appeal by an Operational Creditor of the Corporate Debtor

("CD") - Hindustan National Glass & Industries Ltd. ("HNG") has been

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) Nos.1036 to 1038 of 2025 1 filed challenging the orders dated 30.04.2025, 10.06.2025 and

13.06.2025 passed by National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata Bench-2

in Intervention Petition No.5/KB/2025 filed by the Appellant.

2. Brief facts of the case necessary to be noticed for deciding the

Appeal are:

(i) The Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process ("CIRP") was

initiated with respect to the CD on an application under

Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016

(hereinafter referred to as the "IBC") filed by DBS Bank Ltd.

by order dated 21.01.2021.

(ii) Resolution Plans were invited in the CIRP of the CD. One of

the Resolution Plan submitted in the CIRP was by AGI

Greenpc Ltd. ("AGI Greenpc") and another Resolution Plan

was submitted by Independent Sugar Corporation Ltd.

("Independent Sugar") The Committee of Creditors ("CoC")

voted on the Resolution Plan on 28.10.2022 and approved the

Resolution Plan submitted by AGI Greenpc with 98% votes.

In pursuance to the approval of Resolution Plan, Letter of

Intent was issued by the Resolution Professional ("RP") to AGI

Greenpc and Performance Bank Guarantee ("PBG") as

contemplated by RFRP was submitted by AGI Greenpc on

31.10.2022. The RP filed an application for approval of the

Resolution Plan of AGI Greenpc.

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) Nos.1036 to 1038 of 2025 2

(iii) On an application filed by AGI Greenpc, the Competition

Commission of India ("CCI") approved the combination

between HNG and AGI Greenpc, subject to certain conditions.

(iv) The Adjudicating Authority vide order dated 28.04.2023

granted approval of the Resolution Plan of AGI Greenpc as

approved by the CoC on 28.10.2022. Various Appeals were

filed in this Tribunal challenging the order dated 28.04.2023.

This, tribunal upheld the order of the Adjudicating Authority

in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) Nos.807, 607, 724 and 725 of

2023.

(v) Against the order passed by this Tribunal dated 18.09.2023,

Civil Appeal No.6071 of 2023 was filed by Independent Sugar.

Appeal filed by Independent Sugar was heard by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court with several other Appeals filed against the

order. The Appeals before the Hon'ble Supreme Court also

included the Appeals filed challenging the order dated

28.07.2023 passed by this Tribunal, upholding order dated

15.03.2023 passed by the CCI. The Hon'ble Supreme Court

vide its judgment and order dated 29.01.2025, allowed the

Civil Appeal No.6071 of 2023. The Hon'ble Supreme Court

vide majority judgment dated 29.01.2025 held that

Resolution Plan submitted by AGI Greenpc is unsustainable,

since AGI Greenpc failed to obtain prior approval from the

CCI as mandated by Proviso to Section 31(4) of the IBC. The

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) Nos.1036 to 1038 of 2025 3 Hon'ble Supreme Court set aside the Resolution Plan dated

28.10.2022 approved by the CoC. The Hon'ble Supreme

Court further directed that Resolution Plan of Independent

Sugar and any other Resolution Plan, which possesses the

requisite CCI approval as on 28.10.2022 be voted by the CoC.

(vi) After the order dated 29.01.2025, on 30.01.2025 the

Authorisation for Assignment ("AFA") of Respondent No.1 (RP)

was suspended pursuant to the issuance of show cause

notice against the RP.

(vii) The CoC in 35th CoC Meeting held on 04.02.2025 approved

the Resolution Plan of Independent Sugar. In the Minutes

dated 04.02.2025, the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court dated

29.01.2025 was placed and discussed and decided on the

way forward. The CoC took a decision to return the PBG

given by AGI Greenpc.

(viii) The Appellant, who was Operational Creditor had sent an

email to the CoC to remove Respondent No.1 due to AFA of

Respondent No.1 having been suspended w.e.f 30.01.2025.

The Appellant filed Intervention Petition No.5/KB/2025 on

07.03.2025 praying for various reliefs, including the removal

of the RP and setting aside the decision taken by the CoC in

the Meeting dated 04.02.2025. The Intervention Petition filed

by the Appellant was opposed by the RP. The Adjudicating

Authority on 30.04.2025 on the Intervention Petition

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) Nos.1036 to 1038 of 2025 4 No.05/KB/2025 delivered two separate opinions, one by

Judicial Member and another by Technical Member. Judicial

Member in its opinion directed for replacement of the RP,

however, prayer made by the Appellant to set aside the

proceedings after 29.01.2024 was not acceded. The Technical

Member expressed opinion that Appellant is not entitled to

intervene in the matter and all prayers have become

infructuous.

(ix) There being difference of opinion, the matter was referred to

third Member, who vide order dated 10.06.2025 gave its

opinion. Third Member decided on two issues, which was

referred to third Member, i.e., (i) whether the Intervention

Application filed by the Appellant can be accepted; and (ii)

whether the party can seek various relief to intervene in the

Company Petition which is already admitted. Both the

questions were answered in the affirmative and after the

receipt of the opinion of the third Member on 13.06.2025, the

NCLT disposed of Intervention Petition No.05/KB/2025 in

view of the majority view on Question Nos.(i) & (iii).

(x) It is further relevant to be noticed that before passing of the

order dated 10.06.2025 by third Member, Review Petitions

were filed by AGI and other Petitioners in the Hon'ble

Supreme Court to review the judgment dated 29.01.2025,

which Review Petitions were dismissed on 16.05.2025. The

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) Nos.1036 to 1038 of 2025 5 Hon'ble Supreme Court directed vide order dated 16.05.2025

to the CoC to vote on the Resolution Plan within two weeks

and to complete the entire process within six weeks.

(xi) The CoC has filed Appeal against the order dated 30.04.2025,

10.06.2025 and 13.06.2025, which Appeals have finally been

decided by this Appellate Tribunal holding that the order

dated 13.06.2025, was not based on the majority opinion and

direction for replacement of the RP is unsustainable. The

said judgment is dated 08.07.2025 passed in Company

Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 890 of 2025 and other connected

matters.

3. The present Appeal has been filed by the Appellant on 15.07.2025.

In the Appeal, the Appellant has prayed for following reliefs:

"(a) Set aside impugned orders dated 30.04.2025, 10.06.2025, 13.06.2025 passed by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority, National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata Bench in IA IVN.

P. (IB) No. 5/KB/2025 in CP (IB) No. 369(KB)2020 to the limited extent, that the issue with regard to return of Performance Bank Guarantees submitted by AGI Greenpac Limited has not been adjudicated upon;

(b) Pass any other order as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of this case and in the interest of justice."

4. We have heard Shri Abhijeet Sinha, learned Sr. Counsel appearing

for the Appellant; Shri Arun Kathpalia, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for

the CoC and Shri Krishnendu Datta, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for

the RP.

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) Nos.1036 to 1038 of 2025 6

5. Shri Abhijeet Sinha, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the

Appellant referring to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated

29.01.2025 submits that observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

in the order was to the effect that several material information was

concealed by the SRA (AGI Greenpc). It is submitted that in the Minutes

dated 04.02.2025, after the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated

29.01.2025, a decision was taken to refund the PBG of the AGI Greenpc,

without considering any relevant facts. It is submitted that in view of the

non-disclosure of all relevant information by the SRA as was observed by

the Hon'ble Supreme Court, there was no occasion to refund the PBG to

the AGI Greenpc (SRA). Moreover, there was no reason or consideration

given by the CoC, as to why and on what basis the decision was taken to

refund the PBG. It is submitted that the impugned order also has not

considered the above aspect of the matter, although, the Appellant in the

Intervention Application has prayed for direction for not releasing of PBG

in favour of the AGI

6. Shri Arun Kathpalia, learned senior Counsel appearing for CoC

refuting the submissions of the Appellant submits that the Appellant is an

Operational Creditor and has been creating hurdles in successful

resolution of the CD, even after passing of the order dated 29.01.2025 by

the Hon'ble Supreme Court, Intervention Application 05/KB/2025 was

filed seeking large number of prayers to derail the CIRP, ensuring that

resolution of the CD be not completed. It is submitted that the order and

directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 29.01.2025 was categorical

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) Nos.1036 to 1038 of 2025 7 that Resolution Plan submitted by AGI, was not in accordance with law, it

having not obtained prior approval of the CCI and all action taken

pursuant to the approval of Resolution Plan was nullified, and the rights

of all stakeholders were restored as per status quo ante, prior to the

approval of the Resolution Plan by the CoC on 28.10.2022. It is

submitted that when the Resolution Plan of AGI Greenpc itself was held to

be not in accordance with law, there was no occasion for retaining the

PBG submitted by the AGI Greenpc. It is submitted that submission of

the PBG on 31.10.2022, after issuance of Letter of Intent and all action,

subsequent to 28.10.2022 having been set aside, return of the PBG was

in consequence of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is further

submitted that CoC in the Minutes dated 04.02.2025 has discussed the

conclusion of judgment dated 29.01.2025 and has noted the reasons for

refund of the PBG. It is submitted that present Appeals are nothing but

another attempt to create obstructions in completion of the CIRP. It is

submitted that orders have already been reserved on Resolution Plan

application in pursuance of the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

dated 16.05.2025.

7. Shri Krishnendu Datta, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the

RP opposing the submissions of the Appellant submits that the

Appellant's only purpose is to create hurdles in completion of the

resolution of the CD. Inspite of the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court dated 29.01.2025 and 16.05.2025, the Appellant is filing different

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) Nos.1036 to 1038 of 2025 8 applications before the Adjudicating Authority to derail the completion of

the CIRP and present Appeal is another attempt by the Appellant.

8. We have considered the submissions of learned Counsel for the

parties and have perused the records.

9. There is no dispute between the parties that on 28.10.2022 the CoC

approved the Resolution Plan of AGI Greenpc, which decision of the CoC

also found favour with the Adjudicating Authority, who on 28.04.2023

has approved the Resolution Plan. This Tribunal also on 18.09.2023

upheld the order of Adjudicating Authority dated 28.04.2023, against

which Civil Appeals were filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was delivered on 29.01.2025 in

Civil Appeal No.6071 of 2023 and other connected Appeals. The operative

portion of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is contained in

paragraph 155, is as follows:

"155. The upshot of the above discussion are the following orders:

155.1. The AGI Greenpac's Resolution Plan is unsustainable as it failed to secure prior approval from the CCI, as mandated under the proviso to Section 31(4) of the IBC. Consequently, the approval granted by the CoC to the Resolution Plan dated 28.10.2022 without the requisite CCI approval, cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside and quashed.

155.2. Any action taken pursuant to the Resolution Plan shall stand nullified, and the rights of all stakeholders shall be restored as per status quo ante, prior to the approval of the Resolution Plan by the CoC on 28.10.2022.

155.3. Consequently, the CoC shall reconsider the Appellant's Resolution Plan and any other Resolution Plans which possessed

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) Nos.1036 to 1038 of 2025 9 the requisite CCI approval as on 28.10.2022 i.e., the date on which the CoC voted upon the submitted Resolution Plans."

10. The above judgment indicates that the Resolution Plan of AGI

Greenpc, which was approved on 28.10.2022 was set aside and was held

unsustainable, since the prior approval of the CCI was not obtained. It

was further held that any action taken pursuant to the Resolution Plan

approval dated 28.10.2022 shall stand nullified, and the rights of all

stakeholders shall be restored as per status quo ante, prior to the

approval of the Resolution Plan. It is submitted that the PBG, which was

given by the AGI Greenpc on 31.10.2022 consequent to the approval of

Plan by the CoC on 28.10.2022 and when the Hon'ble Supreme Court set

aside the Resolution Plan and all actions taken pursuant to the approval

of Resolution Plan, the action of submission of PBG itself become

unsustainable and decision to return the PBG to the AGI Greenpc is in

accordance with the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated

29.01.2025. Learned Counsel for the CoC referring to the decision of the

CoC dated 04.02.2025 has brought to notice of this Tribunal at Agenda

Item No.4, which was to discuss the judgment pronounced by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court on 29.01.2025 and decide on the way forward. It is

useful to extract the discussions on Agenda Item No.4, which are as

follows:

"Agenda 4: To discuss the judgment pronounced by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on 29th January 2025 and decide on the way forward The RP requested the RP counsel and the CoC counsel to apprise the CoC members on the judgement passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Independent Sugar Corporation Limited v.

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) Nos.1036 to 1038 of 2025 10 Girish Sriram Juneja and Ors. dated 29 January 2025 (2025 INSC

124) ("SC Judgment").

The CoC counsel updated the members that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has pronounced a common judgment. The judgment had a split verdict. Majority judgment was delivered by Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, which allowed appeals and amongst other things, set aside the resolution plan of AGI Greenpac Limited ("AGI") ("Majority SC Judgment"). The dissenting opinion was delivered by Justice S.V.N. Bhatti, in which he upheld the NCLAT orders and dismissed the appeals with costs.

In effect, inter alia:

(i) The Hon'ble Supreme Court while giving a literal interpretation to the proviso to Section 31(4) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ("Code"), has set aside the resolution plan submitted by AGI, as the said resolution plan was approved by the CoC before approval of the proposed combination by the Competition Commission of India ("CCI").

(ii) Accordingly, as a consequence to the aforesaid, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also set aside the approval granted by the CoC to the AGI resolution plan. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while giving a literal interpretation to the proviso to Section 31 (

4) of the Code has held that all resolution plans containing a proposal for a combination requiring CCI approval should receive such approval from the CCI, before placing the resolution plans for consideration of the CoC. (Ref. Paragraph 155.1 of the Majority SC Judgment)

(iii) The Hon'ble Supreme Court also set aside the resolution plan submitted by AGI, while holding that the proposed voluntary divestment of the Rishikesh plant by AGI, which was proposed after the resolution plan was approved by the CoC, amounted to a modification. Accordingly, the Hon 'hie Supreme Court observed that resolution plans approved by the CoC cannot be modified in any manner after its approval, as the adjudicating authority can only approve the resolution plan in its original fonn, as approved by the CoC. (Ref. Paragraph 118 of the Majority SC Judgment) Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has directed:

(i) any action taken pursuant to the AGI resolution plan stands nullified, and the rights of all stakeholders have been restored as per status quo ante, prior to the approval of the AGI resolution plan by the CoC on 28 October 2022. (Ref. Paragraph 155.2 of the Majority SC Judgment)

(ii) Consequently, the CoC has been directed to reconsider the appellant's resolution plan (i.e. resolution plan submitted by Independent Sugar Corporation Limited "INSCO") and any other resolution plans which possessed the requisite CCI approval as on 28 October 2022 (the date on which the CoC voted upon the submitted resolution plans). (Ref. Paragraph 155.3 of the Majority SC Judgment)

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) Nos.1036 to 1038 of 2025 11 The RP requested the members to deliberate on the SC Judgment and provide their views. The CoC members discussed the SC Judgment and its implications on the ongoing CIRP of the Corporate Debtor.

Subsequently, the RP informed the forum that post the SC Judgment, he has received letter from INSCO dated 30 January 2025, letter from AGI dated 31 January 2025 and letter from erstwhile promoters dated 31 January 2025. The RP informed the forum that the said communications have already been shared with the CoC. The RP at the request of members, presented each of the communication(s) received from INSCO, AGI and the erstwhile promoter.

Letter from erstwhile promoters:

Mr. Sanjay Somany, who is part of the erstwhile promoter group and was attending the CoC meeting in his capacity as the suspended director was requested to present the letter. He stated that it is a proposal under Section 12A of the Code for settlement of all outstanding dues. One of the CoC member stated that the letter does not have any details on the amount or the time lines, he inquired on the details of the proposal, particularly timeline for the repayment. Mr. Somani stated that he does not have the required information as of now, and informed that he can put together a proposal and come and meet the members.

AGI Letter AGI letter was presented before the CoC, which stated that they are evaluating the legal options available, including filing review petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and request that no rights or interests are created in favor of any third party. CoC members requested CoC legal counsel for their views. CoC legal counsel stated that as on the date of the meeting no review petition has been filed by AGI, and there is no stay order from the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In fact, the CoC is obligated to follow the SC Judgment and reconsider the INSCO resolution plan and any other resolution plans which possessed the requisite CCI approval as on 28 October 2022 (the date on which the CoC voted upon the submitted resolution plans). The CoC members took note of the same. INSCO Letter INSCO letter was presented in the CoC meeting, which reiterated INSCO's commitment for resolution of the Corporate Debtor. CoC members took note of the same.

Post discussion on the aforesaid letters, the RP requested the CoC members to discuss the way forward.

CoC members discussed findings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the SC Judgment. It inquired from the legal counsels if the resolution plan approval application filed by the RP for plan approval of AGI has been withdrawn by the RP, and what will happen to all the intervention applications which have been filed before the NCL T.

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) Nos.1036 to 1038 of 2025 12 RP legal counsel and CoC legal counsel updated the CoC members that the SC Judgment has been placed before the NCLT, and a prayer has already been made for declaring the plan approval application and all related intervention applications as infructuous. NCLT has taken note and has directed the RP counsel to submit a list of applications which have become infructuous in light of the Supreme Court directions in the SC Judgment.

The RP legal counsel further apprised the members of the development in the course of the hearing held on 4 February 2025 before the NCLT. He stated that the CoC senior counsel informed the NCLT that a CoC meeting is scheduled later on the same day i.e. on 04 February 2025, to apprise the CoC of the SC Judgment and discuss on the way forward. Following such submissions, the NCLT has directed the CoC to apprise the NCLT with the outcome of the meeting within a week's time and has further placed the proceedings for consideration on 20 February 2025.

Further in line with the SC Judgment and the Supreme Court's direction, the CoC discussed the way forward for approach on the reconsideration of all the resolution plans which were being considered by the CoC during the CIRP of the Corporate Debtor, and which had requisite approval of the CCI on or before 28 October 2022. It noted that only the resolution plan of INSCO will qualify for the consideration of the CoC as per the aforesaid threshold. The CoC had received three resolution plans submitted by (i) Nirma Chemical Works Private Limited, (ii) AGI, and (iii) INSCO, however only resolution plan submitted by INSCO had received requisite CCI approval before 28 October 2022. Therefore, it was concluded that only the resolution plan submitted by INSCO can be reconsidered by the CoC.

The CoC discussed that in the meeting of the CoC held on 30 September 2022, all compliant resolution plans along with all annexures, including the resolution plan submitted by INSCO dated 26 September 2022 was presented to the CoC for its approval in terms of Section 30(3) of the Code and the request for resolution plan dated 24 May 2022 ("RFRP").

In terms of Section 30(4) of the Code read along with Regulation 39(3) of the CIRP Regulations, the resolution plan submitted by JNSCO was approved by the CoC in its commercial wisdom with 88% voting share in terms of the e-voting which stood concluded on 27 October 2022. In line with the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the SC Judgment, the CoC reconsidered all resolution plans, and after due deliberations and in its commercial wisdom, reaffirmed its vote for approval of the INSCO resolution plan as it:

(i) was the only compliant resolution plan as on 28 October 2022;

(ii) has already been considered and approved by the CoC by 88% voting share in terms of thee-voting which stood concluded on 27 October 2022; and

(iii) has not undergone any changes after its consideration by the CoC. The CoC requested the RP to issue a letter of intent to

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) Nos.1036 to 1038 of 2025 13 INSCO and further request INSCO to submit a performance bank guarantee ("PBG") in accordance with Clause 2.11 of the RFRP. RP took note of the same.

The RP further informed the forum that basis the requirement of the RFRP, AGI had submitted a PBG ofINR221.33 Cr which was handed by AGI to SBI SAMB-I, Kolkata Branch. The members discussed the matter and concluded that as the AGI resolution plan has been quashed by the Supreme Court, the PBG submitted by AGI should be returned to AGL The CoC requested RP to coordinate with SBI SAMB- I, Kolkata Branch and write a letter to AGI for collecting the same."

11. The above clearly indicate that CoC decided "The members

discussed the matter and concluded that as the AGI resolution plan has

been quashed by the Supreme Court, the PBG submitted by AGI should be

returned to AGL The CoC requested RP to coordinate with SBI SAMB-I,

Kolkata Branch and write a letter to AGI for collecting the same". The

submission of the Appellant, thus, that CoC never discussed and never

given any reason why PBG has been returned, is incorrect on the face of

it.

12. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has placed much reliance on the

observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in judgment dated 29.01.2025

in paragraph 143, which is as follows:

"143. Transparent and accurate data disclosures are fundamental to the regulatory mechanism. The identified discrepancies compromise the very basis of the CCI's decision-making process. It is imperative to therefore underscore that discrepancies in operational capacity data would strike at the very root of the regulatory mechanism. While we do not intend to embark on a fact-finding expedition afresh, the prima facie inconsistencies in the submitted data ought to have been examined with greater care by the NCLAT. But this was not done. Consequently, the conditional approval should have been revoked, especially in light of the CCI's express mention in its order (dated 15.03.2023) that the order may be revoked if the information provided by the acquirer is found to be incorrect at any particular time."

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) Nos.1036 to 1038 of 2025 14

13. When we look into the above observation, the above observation

was made in the context of decision making with regard to CCI. However,

the Hon'ble Supreme Court itself said "While we do not intend to embark

on a fact-finding expedition afresh, the prima facie inconsistencies in the

submitted data ought to have been examined with greater care by the

NCLAT". The Hon'ble Supreme Court ultimately having set aside the

Resolution Plan, there was no further requirement of consideration with

regard to return of the PBG as contended by the Appellant.

14. We, thus, are satisfied that the return of the PBG to the AGI

Greenpc, consequent to the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court dated

29.01.2025 was consequential and cannot be faulted. The present

Appeals filed by the Appellant are misconceived and deserve to be

dismissed. In result, all the Appeals are dismissed. Pending, IAs, if any,

also stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)

NEW DELHI

28th July, 2025

Ashwani

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) Nos.1036 to 1038 of 2025 15