Tca Surveyors And Advisors Pvt Ltd vs Ms Pooja Bahry

[Arising out of Order dated 12.02.2025 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), New Delhi, Special Bench (Court- II) in Interlocutory Application (IBC) No. 507 of 2025 and Interlocutory Application (Plan) No. 60 of 2024 in Company Petition (IB) 764 of 2022]

IN THE MATTER OF:

T.C.A. Surveyors & Advisors Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellant

Versus

Pooja Bahry, Est. RP for United News of India & Ors. ...Respondents

Present:

For Appellant: Mr. Abhijeet Sinha, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Raktim Gogoi, Mr. Kartikeya Singh, Mr. Shivam Pal Sharma, Mr. S. Vinod, Mr. Anuj Kr. And Mr. Auritro Mukherjee, Advocates.

For Respondents: Mr. Sumant Batra, Mr. Sarthak Bhandari, Ms. Nidhi Yadav and Ms. Pooja Bahry, Advocates for RP. Mr. Sanjay Kapur, Mr. Devesh Dubey, Advocates for CoC/R-2. Mr. Bishawjit Dubey, Mr. Kaustabh Rai, Ms. Aishwarya Singh and Mr. Prakhar Dixit, Advocates for R-3.

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 534 of 2025

[Arising out of Order dated 12.02.2025 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), New Delhi, Special Bench (Court- II) in Interlocutory Application (IBC) No. 507 of 2025 and Interlocutory Application (Plan) No. 60 of 2024 in Company Petition (IB) 764 of 2022]

IN THE MATTER OF:

T.C.A. Surveyors & Advisors Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellant

Versus 2

Pooja Bahry, Est. RP for United News of India & Ors. ...Respondents

Present:

For Appellant: Mr. Abhijeet Sinha, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Raktim Gogoi, Mr. Kartikeya Singh, Mr. Shivam Pal Sharma, Mr. S. Vinod, Mr. Anuj Kr. And Mr. Auritro Mukherjee, Advocates.

For Respondents: Mr. Sumant Batra, Mr. Sarthak Bhandari, Ms. Nidhi Yadav and Ms. Pooja Bahry, Advocates for RP.

Mr. Sanjay Kapur, Mr. Devesh Dubey, Advocates for CoC/R-2.

JUDGMENT

(1st May, 2025)

Ashok Bhushan, J.

These two Appeals have been filed against the same order dated

12.02.2025 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law

Tribunal) New Delhi, Special Bench (Court- II). By the impugned order,

Interlocutory Application (IBC) No. 507 of 2025 filed by the Appellant has

been rejected and Interlocutory Application (Plan) No. 60 of 2024 has been

allowed approving the Resolution Plan of the Corporate Debtor- United News

of India. These two Appeals have been filed challenging the order dated

12.02.2025

2. Brief facts necessary to be noticed for deciding the appeals are:-

2.1. The Corporate Debtor- United News of India is an aggregator of news,

whose shareholders included leading newspapers like Times of India and

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) Nos. 533 & 534 of 2025 3

The Hindustan Times. United News of India is one of the India's largest news

agencies. An Agreement dated 29.05.2015 was entered between United News

of India and the Appellant where the Appellant was chosen to develop

various properties of United News of India situated in different cities in the

Country. Amount of Rs.1 Crore was deposited by another group company of

Appellant Poddar Projects Limited (PPL). An amount of Rs. 4 Crore deposited

by the Appellant was treated as seed money. In terms of the Definitive

Agreement, a Development Agreement had to be entered separately between

the parties for each property. The Corporate Debtor's shareholders opposed

the signing of the Draft Development Agreement with the Appellant in its

Annual General Meeting held on 23.12.2016. Corporate Debtor vide letter

dated 15.03.2017 informed that stakeholders of the Corporate Debtor are

opposed to the signing of the Draft Agreement, Definitive Agreement dated

29.05.2015 was terminated. Appellant issued a Demand Notice dated

21.03.2018 under Section 8 of the IBC demanding an outstanding amount

from the Corporate Debtor, thereafter, Operational Creditor filed an

application under Section 9 being Company Petition (IB) No. 479 of 2018

before the Adjudicating Authority, which Section 9 application came to be

dismissed by the Adjudicating Authority on 31.10.2018 holding that the

transaction is clearly one which does not qualify as an Operational Debt.

The transaction is more by way of collaboration. After dismissal of Section 9

application filed by the Appellant, Appellant filed CS(COMM) No. 175/2019

before the Delhi High Court praying for specific performance of the Definitive

Agreement dated 29.05.2015 as well as money decree to the tune of

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) Nos. 533 & 534 of 2025 4

Rs.6,66,50,000/- in favour of the Appellant. Appellant subsequently

amended relief clause and withdrew relief for specific performance limiting

the prayer in the suit for money decree. On an application filed by an

Operational Creditor, CIRP against the Corporate Debtor commenced on

19.05.2023 and Ms. Pooja Bahry was appointed as Interim Resolution

Professional. In the Commercial Suit filed by the Appellant in Delhi High

Court, Delhi High Court noticed in its order dated 25.07.2024 the

submission of the Appellant that Moratorium has been declared in terms of

the Section 14 of the IBC vide order dated 19.05.2023 which

commencement of the CIRP against the Corporate Debtor was again noticed

in the order dated 03.10.2024. The Resolution Professional issued

Information Memorandum on 27.07.2024 where it was mentioned that

many claimants have not filed their claims before the Resolution

Professional including the Appellant who have been included in the category

of "other". A list of creditor was also uploaded by the Resolution Professional

where it was mentioned that Appellant has not filed its claim who was

treated in the category of 'other' and Resolution Applicants while submitting

their plans besides other creditors as reflected in the books of account may

take into consideration. In the CIRP of the Corporate Debtor, the Resolution

Plans were submitted. The Respondent No.3- The Statesman Limited had

also submitted its Resolution Plan. The CoC in its 25th meeting held on

03.10.2024 decided to put the Resolution Plan submitted by The Statesman

Limited to vote. Voting commenced on 05.10.2024 and concluded on

23.10.2024. The Resolution Plan of 'The Statesman Limited' was approved

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) Nos. 533 & 534 of 2025 5

by the CoC on 23.10.2024 with 100% voting share. The Resolution

Professional received an e-mail dated 24.10.2024 from the Appellant

submitting its claim in Form C although Form C was dated 22.10.2024 but

the hard copy of the Form C was received on 25.10.2024 which was

dispatched on 24.10.2024. On 25.10.2024, Resolution Professional filed IA

No.60 of 2024 for approval of the Resolution Plan. On 31.10.2024,

Resolution Professional sent an e-mail to the Appellant informing that

Appellant's claim received on 25.10.2024 by Speed Post cannot be

considered. The Resolution Plan has already been approved by the CoC and

at that stage, no claim can be considered. Appellant after rejection of his

claim filed an IA No.507 of 2025 on 14.11.2024 before the Adjudicating

Authority seeking a direction to the Resolution Professional to accept the

claim of Rs.9,20,87,500/- by condoning the delay in filing the claim by the

Appellant. IA No.507 of 2025 came for consideration before the Adjudicating

Authority. On 27.11.2024, Adjudicating Authority heard the submissions of

the Resolution Professional and reserved the orders in plan approval

application in IA No.60 of 2024. Application IA No.507 of 2025 came to be

listed before the Adjudicating Authority on 07.02.2025 for the first time. On

12.02.2025 by the impugned order, Adjudicating Authority allowed the plan

approval application IA No.60 of 2024 and rejected IA No.507 of 2025.

Aggrieved by the above orders, these two Appeals have been filed.

3. We have heard Shri Abhijeet Sinha, Learned Senior Counsel for the

Appellant, Shri Sumant Batra, Learned Counsel for the Resolution

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) Nos. 533 & 534 of 2025 6

Professional, Shri Sanjay Kapur and Shri Devesh Dubey, Learned Counsel

for the CoC and Shri Bishawjit Dubey, Learned Counsel for the SRA.

4. Counsel for the Resolution Professional has filed a Convenience

Compilation bringing various orders passed by the NCLT, High Court and

other materials which are part of the record of the Adjudicating Authority.

5. Counsel for the Appellant in support of the Appeal submits that in the

Information Memorandum which has been filed along with the convenience

compilation by the Resolution Professional, the claim by the Appellant has

classified as 'other creditor' which is contrary to the law. It is submitted that

the debt of the Appellant was required to be treated as financial debt. It is

submitted that even if the claim was filed after approval of the plan by the

CoC, the claim of the Appellant being reflected in the financial statements of

the Corporate Debtor which was required to be appropriately classified by

the Resolution Professional. Audited financial statements clearly mentioned

the debt under the head 'Other Long-Term Liabilities', hence, Appellant was

Financial Creditor. It was obligation of the Resolution Professional to

prepare the Information Memorandum which shall include the financial

statements of the Corporate Debtor and once the amounts paid by the

Corporate Debtor were duly reflecting under the head of 'Long-Term

Liabilities', there was no occasion to incorrectly classify the Appellant as an

'other creditor'. The Resolution Professional itself has admitted that the

claim of the Appellant was reflecting in the books of accounts of the

corporate debtor. The Resolution Professional has conducted the entire CIRP

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) Nos. 533 & 534 of 2025 7

with the presence of sole Financial Creditor/ State Bank of India.

Adjudicating Authority has failed to address the moot issue as to how the

claim of the Appellant is getting extinguished under the provisions of the

Resolution Plan. There is no decision holding that there shall be an

automatic extinguishment of all rights and claims which arose prior to the

CIRP. It is submitted that such extinguishment can only take place if the

same has been specifically contemplated in terms of the Resolution Plan,

part of which is referred in compilation referring the payment to the

Appellant as 'Nil Amount being paid to the Other Creditors'. There is no

rationale for the classification of the Appellant as an 'Other Creditor'.

6. Counsel appearing for the Resolution Professional refuting the

submissions of the Counsel for the Appellant submits that after

commencement of the CIRP on 19.05.2023, Resolution Professional has

issued a public announcement in various newspapers inviting claims and an

e-mail dated 28.05.2023 was also sent to the Appellant. In the Commercial

Suit filed by the Appellant before the Delhi High Court, Appellant counsel

itself acknowledged on 25.07.2024 that Corporate Debtor is in CIRP. Again

on 03.10.2024, Counsel for the Appellant once again informed of CIRP

proceedings. CoC having decided in 25th CoC meeting held on 03.10.2024 to

put Resolution Plan for vote and Resolution Plan was voted and approved on

23.10.2024 with 100% voting share. Resolution Professional received the

claim of the Appellant on 24.10.2024 at 1:49 PM by e-mail and by Speed

Post on 25.10.2025 which Speed Post was forwarded only on 24.10.2024

which clearly indicates that the claim was sent only after approval of the

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) Nos. 533 & 534 of 2025 8

Resolution Plan which took place on 23.10.2024. Appellant had earlier filed

application under Section 9 which was rejected holding that Appellant is not

an Operational Creditor. The claim of the Appellant which was being

reflected in the financial statement has been taken due note by the

Resolution Professional and in the Information Memorandum, the claim has

been referred as 'other creditor'. Resolution Professional has, thus, reflected

the claim of the Appellant in Information Memorandum. It is CoC's

commercial decision as to what amount is to be paid to which creditor,

'other creditor' has been proposed 'nil' amount in the plan. There is no error

in the order approving the Resolution Plan. Appellant having filed its claim

after approval of the Resolution Plan by the CoC it has rightly been not

accepted both by the Resolution Professional and the Adjudicating

Authority. Counsel for the Resolution Professional relied on judgment of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in "RPS Infrastructure Limited vs. Mukul Kumar

and Another- (2023) 10 SCC 718".

7. Counsel for the CoC has also supported the submission of the

Resolution Professional and submits that the claim filed after approval of the

plan by the CoC cannot be considered. It is submitted that Appellant was

very well aware of the commencement of the CIRP which is recorded in the

proceedings before the High Court in Commercial Suit filed by the Appellant.

It is the Appellant who himself has to be blamed for not filing claim within

time allowed. Appellant having not submitted its claim, it is not relevant to

consider as to whether his claim has been rightly categorised by the

Resolution Professional or not.

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) Nos. 533 & 534 of 2025 9

8. Counsel for the SRA has also supported the impugned order and

submits that the CoC after considering all aspects of the matter has

approved the Resolution Plan with 100% vote share. Claim of the Appellant

was not filed before approval of the plan by CoC. Adjudicating Authority

rightly rejected the application filed by the Appellant. Resolution Plan

amount is Rs.72 Crore and Resolution Applicant is not under any

circumstance to bring any amount over and above the above amount. The

claim submitted to the Resolution Professional upto 11.07.2024 as updated

by the Resolution Professional has been considered by the CoC.

9. We have considered the submissions of the Counsel for the parties

and perused the record.

10. Appellant has filed Section 9 application on the basis of Definitive

Agreement dated 29.05.2015 before the Adjudicating Authority claiming an

amount of Rs.5 Crores along with interest. CP (IB) No.479 of 2018 filed by

the Appellant came to be heard and dismissed by the Adjudicating Authority

on 31.10.2018. Adjudicating Authority held that the claim filed by the

Appellant does not qualify as an operational debt. Last two paragraphs of

the order are as follows:-

"5. The arguments advanced by the respondent merits consideration. The transaction is clearly one which does not qualify as an Operational Debt. The transaction is more by way of collaboration. The petitioner had paid the amount of Rs. 5 Crores as "seed

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) Nos. 533 & 534 of 2025 10

money" to develop the Respondent's property in return for built up space. Such a transaction having gone sour, recovery of money cannot be viewed as an "Operational Debt". On this point alone, this petition is rejected.

6. We make it clear that subject to the statutory limitations, the present proceedings shall not debar the petitioner from taking appropriate steps for recovery of its dues in any other proceedings."

11. It was after dismissal of Section 9 application that C.S. (Commercial)

No.175 of 2019 was filed by the Appellant against the Corporate Debtor in

Delhi High Court which remains pending. CIRP against the Appellant had

commenced on 19.05.2023. Proceedings before the Delhi High Court in the

Commercial Suit filed by the Appellant dated 25.07.2024 and 03.10.2024

have been noticed by the Adjudicating Authority in paragraph 5 of the order.

Paragraph 5 of the order is as follows:-

"5. Having drawn our attention to the order dated 25.07.2024 & 03.10.2024 passed in CS (COMM) No. 175 of 2019 & I.A. 4940/2019, Mr. Sumant Batra contended that way back on 25.07.2024, the Applicant in the captioned IA was aware about commencement of CIRP and moratorium. The aforementioned orders read thus: -

ORDER 25.07.2024

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) Nos. 533 & 534 of 2025 11

Proceedings are being conducted through hybrid mode.

Case file has been received from the court of Dr. Jagminder Singh, Ld. Joint Registrar (Judicial) by way of transfer in terms of office order dated 28.06.2024.

CS(COMM) 175/2019

1. The present matter is at the stage of exparte PE.

2. As per office noting, nothing fresh has been filed.

3. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has submitted that moratorium has been declared in terms of Section 14 of The Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 by the NCLT vide order dated 19.05.2023 and same has been extended till 13.9.2024 vide order dated 30.4.2024.

4. Ld. Counsels for both the parties have submitted that the matter may be placed before the Hon'ble Court where they would make their further submissions.

5. In the present facts and at joint request, let the matter be placed before Hon'ble Court for further directions on 03rd October, 2024.

[***]

ORDER 03.10.2024

1. Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff states that proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) have been initiated against the Defendant as an

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) Nos. 533 & 534 of 2025 12

application under Section 9 of the IBC was admitted by the NCLT vide Order dated 19.05.2023.

2. Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff states that she is not aware of the outcome of the proceedings before the NCLT. She prays for an accommodation to ascertain the status of the application pending before the NCLT.

3. List on 28.01.2025."

12. As noted above, the CoC in its 25th CoC meeting held on 03.10.2024

resolved to put the Resolution Plan of 'The Statesman Limited' for voting

which was held between 05.10.2024 to 23.10.2024 and on 23.10.2024 with

100% vote share, Resolution Plan of 'The Statesman Limited' was approved.

The claim sent by the Appellant vide e-mail as well as the Speed Post to the

Resolution Professional was received by the Resolution Professional vide

Speed Post on 25.10.2024 and by e-mail on 24.10.2024. Form C which was

forwarded by the Appellant although bears the date 22.10.2024 but it was

dispatched on 24.10.2024 through Speed Post and by e-mail on 24.10.2024

i.e. subsequent to the approval of the Resolution Plan by the CoC.

Resolution Professional has submitted that public announcement was made

on 21.05.2023 and 22.05.2023 in the Financial Express and Jan Satta

Hindi in all over India Editions and further other newspapers. The

proceedings dated 25.07.2024 and 03.10.2024 before the Delhi High Court

initiated by the Appellant itself as noticed above records the statement of the

Appellant which states that CIRP has commenced against the Corporate

Debtor by order dated 19.05.2023. When the Appellant was well aware of

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) Nos. 533 & 534 of 2025 13

the initiation of the CIRP of the Corporate Debtor, Appellant himself was to

be blamed for not filing the claim within time. In any view of the matter,

claim was filed subsequent to the approval of the Resolution Plan by the

CoC.

13. Counsel for the Appellant has submitted that the claim of the

Appellant was very much reflected in the balance sheet of the Corporate

Debtor as on 31.03.2021 in the balance sheet of the Corporate Debtor

ending on 31.03.2021 under the heading 'Other Long-Term Liabilities', the

amount of Rs.6,50,00,000/- was mentioned as 'advance for building

construction'. As noted above, the Appellant himself has initiated

proceedings under Section 9 which proceeding culminated into rejection

holding that claim of the Appellant cannot be treated as operational debt.

14. Counsel for the Resolution Professional has brought on record the

Information Memorandum issued on 27.07.2024 which contains following

note:-

"Kindly also note that many Claimants have not filed their Claim before the Resolution Professional, including "Other" Creditors (including Peerless Consultation Services Pvt Ltd and TCA SURVEYORS & Advisor Pvt. Ltd etc).

Their Claims should be considered by the Resolution Applicant, while submitting their Plan, besides other Creditors as reflected in the Books of Accounts of the Corporate Debtor, who have not filed claims."

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) Nos. 533 & 534 of 2025 14

15. Extract of the Resolution Plan dated 30.09.2024 has been included in

the Convenience Compilation filed by Resolution Professional wherein

paragraph 6.7.8 with regard to payment to other creditors, no payment has

been proposed. Resolution Professional has treated the claim of the

Appellant under 'other category' it being reflected in the financial statement.

The present is, thus, a case where on the basis of financial statement, the

Appellant was categorised as 'other category' by the Resolution Professional

even though claim was not filed by the Appellant. Resolution Plan does not

propose any payment to the other creditors whereas payment has been

proposed to Financial Creditor secured, Operational Creditor, employees as

well as Government dues and gratuity actuarial valuation. Appellant's

submission is that the Resolution Professional committed error in

categorising the Appellant's claim as 'other creditors' whereas fund infusion

by Appellant qualifies as financial debt. The present is a case where Section

9 application was filed by the Appellant which was rejected holding that debt

cannot constitute operational debt and thereafter Appellant had filed

Commercial Suit in Delhi High Court in 2019 and the CIRP of the Corporate

Debtor commenced on 19.05.2023 and after due publication although

several other creditors have filed their claims, Appellant choose not to file its

claim. Appellant cannot contend that he was not aware of the CIRP since in

the proceedings filed by the Appellant itself in Delhi High Court the

initiation of the CIRP has been noticed as has been noted by the

Adjudicating Authority in its impugned order. Appellant was well aware of

the initiation of the CIRP and had chosen not to file any claim. Resolution

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) Nos. 533 & 534 of 2025 15

Plan has already been approved by the CoC. When Appellant chose not to

file any claim before approval of the plan by CoC, it is not open for the

Appellant to claim that his claim needs to be accepted as financial debt. This

Tribunal in "Deputy Commissioner, UTGST, Daman vs. Rajeev Dhingra

[Company Appeal (AT)(Ins) No. 1340 of 2022]" decided on 14.09.2023 has

dismissed the Appeal filed by an Appellant challenging the order approving

the Resolution Plan on the ground that their claim was submitted and claim

was required to be considered in the CIRP. It is useful to notice paragraphs

44, 45 & 55 of the judgment of this Tribunal which is as follows:-

"44. From a plain reading of the above CIRP Regulations, RP can accept the claim as per extended period as provided in CIRP Regulation 12(2). After extended period of 90 days of the insolvency commencement date, the IRP/RP is not obliged to accept the claim. Prima-facie, the said CIRP regulation has not provided any discretion to RP for admitting their claim after the extended period. Had they submitted their respective claims within the extended time-frame and the RP had not chosen to collate this claim as provided for in IBC, only then can it be rightly contended that there has occurred some material irregularity. In the instant case, the facts on record do not in any manner show that the RP was not diligent in performing his duty or acted in contravention of the of the IBC in rejecting the belated claims of UTGST and AC- CGST.

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) Nos. 533 & 534 of 2025 16

45. It is vehemently contended by the Learned Counsels for the RP and the SRA-Vama that when the Resolution Plan has already been approved by the CoC and it is pending before the Adjudicating Authority for approval, at this stage, if new claims are entertained the CIRP would be jeopardized and derailed. This would militate against the object of the IBC which is resolution of Corporate Debtor in time bound manner to maximize the value.

55. Thus, to answer the second issue, we hold that given these facts and circumstances, there has been no dereliction of duty on the part of the RP in rejecting the belated claims of UTGST and AC- CGST. We therefore do not find any error or irregularity on the part of RP to have rejected the belated claims of UTGST and AC-CGST.

Furthermore, we find that the Adjudicating Authority in the first impugned order has taken note that the resolution plan submitted by the SRA

- Vama has taken into account the interest of government authorities and provided for appropriate treatment of admitted government dues. The Resolution Plan submitted by the Vama has dealt with the claims of Operational Creditors to the extent of Rs. 10 lakhs besides earmarking an additional sum of Rs. 25 lakhs for all the Government Department claims and undertaken to pay all the PF dues at actuals based on the outcome of an ongoing legal case at Delhi High Court with respect thereto. Thus, the approval of resolution plan of SRA-Vama by Adjudicating

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) Nos. 533 & 534 of 2025 17

Authority, which was approved by the CoC with 100% vote share, does not suffer from any material or procedural infirmities."

16. The claim submitted by the Appellant after approval of the Resolution

Plan has rightly not been accepted by the Resolution Professional and we

are of the view that the Adjudicating Authority also did not commit any error

in rejecting IA No.507 of 2025 filed by the Appellant where direction was

sought to Resolution Professional to condone the delay in filing the claim

and further direction to the Resolution Professional to accept the claim. The

Resolution Professional also cannot be said to have committed any breach of

CIRP Regulations 2016 since he has noticed in the Information

Memorandum that no claim has been filed by the Appellant although

financial statement mentioned receipt of the amount from the Appellant.

Note which we have already extracted in the Information Memorandum duly

notices the claim has not been filed by other creditors including the

Appellant whose claims should be considered by the Resolution Applicants

while submitting their plans. The Resolution Applicants while submitting

their plans has decided not to make any payment to other creditors which is

at paragraph 6.7.8 of the plan is to the following effect:-

"6.7.8. Payment to Other Creditors

No payment has been proposed towards Other Creditors under the Plan."

17. We, thus, do not find any error in the order of the Adjudicating

Authority allowing the Resolution Plan Application being IA No.60 of 2024

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) Nos. 533 & 534 of 2025 18

and rejecting IA No.507 of 2025 filed by the Appellant. There is no merit in

any of the Appeals. Both the Appeals are dismissed.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Arun Baroka] Member (Technical)

New Delhi Anjali

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) Nos. 533 & 534 of 2025