The South Indian Bank Ltd vs Brijesh Singh Bhadauriya

IN THE MATTER OF: The South Indian Bank Ltd., Through its Chief Manager/authorized representative, Mr. Swaroop Kumar Tripathy, S/o Shri Suresh Chandra Tripathy, Regional Office at: 3rd Floor, Plot No. 21 & 21/1, Near Karol Bagh Metro Station, Pusa Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005 ...Appellant

Versus

Brijesh Singh Bhadauriya Resolution Professional for RCI Industries and Technologies Limited C-II/ 08, Mangal Apartment, Vasundhara Enclave, Near Dharamshila Naryayan Superspeciality Hospital, East, National Capital Territory of Delhi-110096 ...Respondent

Present: For Appellant : Ms. Samiksha Godiyal, Mr. Arsh Khan, Mr. Ritwik Narayanan and Mr. Tenzing Bhatia, Advocates

For Respondent : Ms. Swapnil Gupta, Advocate for SRA.

JUDGMENT

(Hybrid Mode)

[Per: Arun Baroka, Member (Technical)] The present Appeal is preferred by the Appellant, which is a scheduled

commercial bank, and which had provided various credit facilities to RCI

Industries and Technologies Limited (the "Corporate Debtor"), against the

order dated 13.02.2025 passed by the Hon'ble National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi, Bench III in IA No. 3206/2023 in IB No.2688/ND/2019

("Impugned Order") under Section 61(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Code. By the Impugned Order, the Ld. Adjudicating Authority has dismissed

the application for direction filed by the Appellant to be treated as a Financial

Creditor in relation to a credit facility extended to the Corporate Debtor under

Trade Receivables Discounting System ("TReDS").

Brief relevant facts are as follows:

2. The Reserve Bank of India issued guidelines on 02.07.2018 to set up

the Trade Receivables Discounting System ("TReDS"). TReDS lets MSMEs

convert trade receivables into cash. It works through an electronic bidding

platform. Many financiers compete on this platform to discount invoices. The

Appellant/Bank signed a Master Financier Agreement with Mynd Solutions

Pvt. Ltd on 07.04.2018. Mynd Solutions hosts the TReDS platform -which is

called 'M1 Exchange'. The Corporate Debtor registered on this platform as a

buyer. It signed a Master Buyer's Agreement with Mynd Solutions on

21.12.2018.

3. The mechanism of reverse factoring worked as described herein after.

The Corporate Debtor's suppliers sold goods in the ordinary course of

business. They uploaded their invoices on the M1 platform. The Corporate

Debtor, as buyer, confirmed these invoices. Financiers, including the

Appellant/Bank, then bid to discount the invoices. Once a bid was accepted,

the Bank paid the supplier immediately even though a discounted value. At

the same time, the supplier signed a Deed of Assignment. This was done

digitally on the M1 platform. Clause 4.3.3 of the Master Buyer's Agreement

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 597 of 2025 2 of 35 governs this step. By this deed, the trade receivable was assigned to the Bank.

The Bank then had the right to recover the full invoice value. It could recover

this from the Corporate Debtor on the due date. Between August 2019 and

February 2020, the Bank made such payments. It also took assignments of

the receivables. Between 2019 and 2020, the Bank began getting bounce

notifications. These were NACH auto-debit bounces due to non-payment by

the Corporate Debtor.

4. The Corporate Debtor's account became a Non-Performing Asset on

15.11.2019. Standard Chartered Bank, Singapore, then filed a Section 9

application. This application was admitted on 25.11.2022. CIRP began

against the Corporate Debtor. Respondent No. 1 was appointed IRP, and later

Resolution Professional. The Bank filed its claim in Form C on 13.12.2022

and claimed as a Financial Creditor. The total claim was ₹38.54 crore. This

had two parts. ₹20,62,76,197 was towards a cash-credit facility i.e. CCOL

exposure. ₹17,92,08,473 was towards the TReDS exposure. By a

communication dated 18.12.2022, the Resolution Professional accepted the

CCOL part as financial debt. But he held the TReDS part to be operational

debt and directed the Bank to re-file that claim in Form B. The Bank objected.

It raised this objection at the first CoC meeting on 29.12.2022 and also wrote

a letter dated 20.12.2022. However, the Resolution Professional did not

accept the objection.

5. The Bank filed I.A. No. 3206 of 2023 on 05.06.2023 under Section 60(5)

of the Code and sought two things. First, to set aside the Resolution

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 597 of 2025 3 of 35 Professional's communication. Second, a direction to treat the TReDS claim

as financial debt. Pleadings were completed by 16.08.2024. Meanwhile, the

CoC approved the SRA's resolution plan on 05.06.2024. An application

seeking approval of this plan was filed before the Adjudicating Authority on

07.09.2024. By the Impugned Order dated 13.02.2025, the Adjudicating

Authority dismissed I.A. No. 3206 of 2023. It held that the issue was covered

by its own earlier order, dated 10.11.2023, which was passed in I.A. No. 1990

of 2023, in the matter of Mudraksh Investfin Pvt. Ltd. v. Brijesh Singh

Bhadauriya. It concerned an identical TReDS claim and related to the very

same Corporate Debtor. This Appellate Tribunal had affirmed that order on

05.01.2024 in Company Appeal (AT)(Ins) No. 1671 of 2023.

6. While the appeal was pending, the Adjudicating Authority, on

09.10.2025, approved the SRA's resolution plan. It is not disputed that the

plan has since been fully implemented. Payments have been made to creditors

under the plan. The Monitoring Committee has been dissolved.

7. It is also on record that the Bank filed a fresh claim in Form B on

12/13.03.2025 as an Operational Creditor. This happened after I.A. No. 3206

of 2023 was dismissed. It also happened after the CoC had approved the plan.

Submissions of the Appellant/South Indian Bank

8. The present appeal is preferred against the order dated 13.02.2025

passed by the Ld. National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi, Court-III, by

which, the Appellant's application for directions under Section 60(5) of the

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ("IBC") was dismissed. Through the

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 597 of 2025 4 of 35 said application, the Appellant sought reclassification of the credit facilities

extended through the Trade Receivables and Discounting System ("TReDS")

as a "financial debt". The facility was extended on a reverse factoring basis,

i.e., a buyer-led financing arrangement where a bank/financial institution

finances the supplier's invoice at a discount at the buyer's request. In such

transactions, the bank/financial institution is the financier and the buyer is

the borrower. The Appellant's case is that this lending transaction has been

wrongly classified as an "operational debt" by the IRP/Resolution

Professional, a view upheld by the Ld. NCLT.

9. The Appellant had extended various credit facilities to RCI Industries

and Technologies Limited, ("Corporate Debtor") including-

i. CCOL exposure to the tune of ₹20,62,76,197.

ii. Trade Receivables and Discounting System ("TReDS") facility on a 'reverse factoring basis', to the tune of ₹17,92,08,473 through platform hosted by Mynd Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

10. As the Corporate Debtor defaulted on payments to their creditors, their

account was declared as a Non-Performing Asset ("NPA") on 15.11.2019. A

Section 9 application under the IBC, filed by one of its Operational Creditors

was admitted by the Ld. NCLT on 25.11.2022. Thereafter, the Appellant filed

its claim for ₹38.54 Crores before the Respondent No. 1 in 'Form C' as a

financial creditor on 13.12.2022. The Respondent by his email dated

18.12.2022 while accepting the claim of the Appellant of CCOL as being a

financial debt, concluded that the debt with respect to TReDS facility was an

operational debt and directed the Appellant to file the claim in that regard

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 597 of 2025 5 of 35 under 'Form B'. The Appellant challenged the same before the Ld. NCLT and

sought a direction for re-classification of its credit facility extended under

TReDS as a financial debt. The Ld. NCLT vide the Impugned Order dated

13.02.2025 rejected the application by the Appellant, on an erroneous basis

that the same was covered by the decision of this Appellate Tribunal in the

case of 1M/s. Mudraksh Investfin Private Limited vs. Mr. Brijesh Singh

Bhadauriya [Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1671/ 2023].

11. The Ld. NCLT failed to consider any of the grounds raised in the

Appellant's application and rejected the application on an incorrect

presumption that the Appellant's counsel had conceded to being covered by

1Mudraksh.

12. Aggrieved by the same, the Appellant filed the underlying appeal before

this Appellate Tribunal on 28.03.2025, which was admitted on 08.05.2025.

However, while the matter was pending before this Appellate Tribunal, on

09.10.2025, the Ld. NCLT approved the resolution plan submitted by the

Respondent No. 2/ SRA without considering the status of credit extended by

the Appellant under TReDS- either as a financial or operation debt- leaving it

completely out of consideration.

13. The Appellant is a scheduled commercial bank and its activities are

regulated by sectoral regulators such as the Reserve Bank of India ("RBI"). As

1 M/s. Mudraksh Investfin Private Limited vs. Mr. Brijesh Singh Bhadauriya [Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1671/ 2023] Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 597 of 2025 6 of 35 a scheduled commercial bank, the service provided by the Appellant is limited

to providing lending facilities to various borrowers. Accordingly, the facility

extended by the Appellant to the Corporate Debtor was in the nature of a loan

i.e. a financial debt.

14. The Guidelines for Trade Receivables Discounting System (TReDS)

issued by the RBI dated 02.07.2018, ("RBI Guidelines") provide clarity on the

nature of transactions undertaken on the TReDS, salient features of the same

are summarized below:

a. Clause 3 of the notification states that the scheme has been set up for the benefit of MSMEs.

b. Clause 5 of the notification states that transactions on the TReDS platform shall be on a "without recourse" basis to MSMEs (i.e. suppliers).

c. Clause 6 (a) of the notification distinguishes factoring transactions (i.e. at the behest of the supplier) from reverse factoring transactions (i.e. at the behest of the buyer). Crucially, in the present case the dispute arises from a reverse factoring transaction.

d. Clause 9 states that the final payment is to be made by the buyer to the financier on the due date.

e. Annexure to the RBI Guidelines provides an illustrative outline of process flow under TReDS. Clause p) states that the financier will be entitled to receive funds from the buyer, while Clause q) states that upon non-payment by the buyer on the due date, the financier will be enabled to proceed against the buyer. Clause q) makes it clear that the non-recourse of the financier is limited to the MSMEs (i.e. supplier) and not the buyer.

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 597 of 2025 7 of 35

15. The Appellant/South Indian bank contends that section 5(8) of the IBC

squarely applies to the Appellant's transaction. Transactions undertaken on

the TReDS platform were governed by the agreements entered between the

Appellant, the Corporate Debtor and Mynd Platform including the Master

Financier's Agreement ("MFA") and Master Buyer's Agreement ("MBA"). The

nature of transaction under the MFA and MBA which clearly showcase that

the nature of the transaction is a financial debt/ loan:

Clause Provision

1.35 of the The Definition of Transaction includes all actions MFA between the Supplier, Buyer and the Financiers

5.1.2 of the The Appellant has right to demand payment on the MFA trade receivables.

5.1.3 of the The Appellant has right to charge penal interest. MFA 5.1.5.1 of the Discounting of factoring units only without recourse MFA to the supplier.

4.1.1 of the The Factoring Unit is created by the Buyer in case of MBA reverse factoring

4.3.2 of the Buyer shall be unconditionally liable to pay on the due MBA date any underlying amounts to the Financier.

4.3.7.2 of the Discounting of factoring units only without recourse MBA to the supplier.

7.3 of the The Corporate Debtor is obligated to pay the due MBA amounts on the stipulated day with expenses and interest.

7.5 of the The Corporate Debtor has to pay interest amount MBA computed by the Appellant on any delay or dishonour of payment under a Factoring Unit in accordance with the Penal Interest Rate

7.11 of the The Corporate Debtor has also authorized the MBA financier to provide notification to the Central Registry

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 597 of 2025 8 of 35

of Securitization Asset Reconstruction and Security Interest in respect of any Transaction which has been discounted by the Appellant.

16. The above clauses governing the relationship between the Appellant

and the Corporate Debtor, demonstrate the following:

a. Time value of money is built in: The MBA obligates the Corporate Debtor to pay due amounts with expenses and interest, and separately provides interest/penal interest on delay/dishonour.

b. The transaction is structurally buyer-led finance: Reverse factoring is initiated by/anchored to the buyer, and repayment is from the buyer's account on the due date.

c. Commercially, the Financier disburses on behalf of the Corporate Debtor to discharge its supplier obligations, hence the disbursal is for the benefit of the Corporate Debtor.

d. It is "non-recourse" only with respect to the supplier (MSME) and not the buyer (Corporate Debtor)

17. In view of the above, it is clear that the nature of the transaction

between the Appellant and the Corporate Debtor squarely falls within the

definition of 'financial debt' as provided under Section 5(8)(e) of the IBC.

18. In any case, the transaction would be covered under Section 5(8)(f)

which covers any transaction having the commercial effect of borrowing.

19. Appellant places its reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in 2Global Credit Capital Limited vs Sach Marketing [2024 SCC

2 Global Credit Capital Limited vs Sach Marketing [2024 SCC Online SC 649)] Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 597 of 2025 9 of 35 Online SC 649)] wherein it was held that when determining the nature of

debt, it is necessary to ascertain what is the real nature of the transaction

reflected in the writing which we have discussed in the later sections

hereinafter.

20. The Appellant claims that the decision in the case of 1Mudraksh doesn't

apply to the present case. The decision of this Ld. Tribunal in 1Mudraksh is

contained within its own facts and delivered on the following primary grounds:

a. There was no disbursement in 1Mudraksh.

b. The 'transaction' in question arose from sale and purchase of goods.

21. The relevant paragraph has been extracted below for ease of reference:

"21...The transaction emanates from sale and purchase of goods in the present case. No disbursement made to the Corporate Debtor, hence, the transactions cannot be held to be a financial debt..."

22. With respect to the first ground that no disbursement was provided to

the Corporate Debtor, this Appellate Tribunal failed to consider the following

judgements which stipulate that 'disbursal' under S.5(8) is not limited to

disbursals made to the Corporate Debtor but would include disbursals being

made on its behalf or at its instruction:

a. 3Rajeev Kumar Jain v. Uno Minda Limited [2024 SCC OnLine NCLAT 28] holds that any disbursal made on behalf of the Corporate Debtor or at its instructions would be tantamount to a disbursal made to the Corporate Debtor as the Corporate Debtor is the ultimate beneficiary of such disbursal. [36].

3 Rajeev Kumar Jain v. Uno Minda Limited [2024 SCC OnLine NCLAT 28] Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 597 of 2025 10 of 35 b. 4Somesh A. Naik vs Isinox Limited [2023 SCC Online NCLT 91] also holds that payments made to suppliers on behalf of a Corporate Debtor would be deemed to be a financial debt as it is covered under S.5(8)(e) of the IBC which specifically deals with "Receivables Sold or Discounted". [4.6.2, 4.6.4].

23. Further, the flaw in the reasoning in 1Mudraksh is that the sale and

purchase transaction between the Corporate Debtor and the supplier was

considered, and this Appellate Tribunal based its findings on the purchase

transaction being the primary transaction between the parties. This Appellate

Tribunal did not consider the nature of the independent financing/lending

transaction between the Corporate Debtor and the financier. The financier,

like the Appellant in the present case, has an independent right under the

TReDS agreements to demand payment from the buyer and an independent

obligation to pay the supplier on behalf of the buyer. This transaction is purely

financial between the Appellant and the Corporate Debtor wherein funds have

been disbursed by the Appellant at the behest of the Corporate Debtor to

enable it to pay its suppliers. It has no connection with the business

operations of the Corporate Debtor or the underlying sale and purchase

agreement.

24. The nature of the transaction between the Corporate Debtor and the

Appellant continues to remain a lending transaction and does not change

merely because the funds disbursed by the Appellant are utilized to pay

suppliers for purchase of goods. The judgment in 1Mudraksh fails to consider

4 Somesh A. Naik vs Isinox Limited [2023 SCC Online NCLT 91] Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 597 of 2025 11 of 35 this aspect and the nature of the transaction that exists between the

Corporate Debtor and a Financier.

25. In any case, the judgement in 1Mudraksh did not deal with S.5(8)(e) of

the IBC (the judgement in 1Mudraksh is restricted to S.5(8)(f)) which clearly

includes trade receivables within the definition of 'financial debt' as long as

the such trade receivables are with recourse. Since recourse under the MFA

and MBA exists against the Corporate Debtor (buyer), the lending facilities

extended by the Appellant are squarely covered within the definition of

'financial debt' under S.5(8)(e) of the IBC.

26. The Ld. NCLT did not consider the fact that the decision in 1Mudraksh

was given in relation to non-banking financial institution, while the Appellant

is a scheduled commercial bank and is governed by the rules and directions

issued by RBI. These two entities cannot be equated since they have very

different working and different applicable sectoral regulators.

27. As per the RBI guidelines, non-payment to the banker would be

tantamount to a default and be reported as such as per regulatory procedures

and will enable the banker to proceed against the defaulter. Therefore, there

are specific guidelines which are applicable to the banks/ financial

institutions in such circumstances. The Appellant also had to book exposure

on the same. Therefore, the discounting and factoring services were provided

by the Appellant only as a financial-services with interest and penal charges

applicable and there can be no direct application of 1Mudraksh herein.

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 597 of 2025 12 of 35

28. In any event, the decision in 1Mudraksh might also require

reconsideration given that there appears to be a difference in opinion between

different benches in 1Mudraksh and 3Rajeev Kumar Jain of this Appellate

Tribunal in relation to how a transaction where credit is extended to cover the

dues to the suppliers is to be treated.

29. While the proceedings have been pending before this Appellate

Tribunal, the Committee of Creditors had approved the resolution plan

submitted by Respondent No. 2 and the same was also later confirmed by the

Ld. NCLT vide its order dated 09.10.2025. Therefore, the resolution plan

doesn't consider the claim by the Appellant made under the TReDS under

either of the heads- financial or operational. This is contrary to the law laid

down in 5Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority vs Prabhjit

Singh Soni [2024 SCC OnLine SC 122] wherein it has been held that where

a claim is submitted by a creditor, which is otherwise verifiable, even if in the

wrong class, the same must be accorded due consideration [¶30]. The same

hasn't been done herein.

30. Aside from the above, the decision by the Respondent and confirmed by

the Ld. NCLT has heavily prejudiced the interests of all financial institutions

acting upon the guidelines issued by RBI for setting up and operating TReDS

for facilitating the financing of trade receivables of MSMEs from corporates

through multiple financiers. The same would move them lower in the

5 Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority vs Prabhjit Singh Soni [2024 SCC OnLine SC 122] Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 597 of 2025 13 of 35 liquidation waterfall and negatively impact not just the financiers but also

MSMEs for whose benefit the scheme was introduced.

31. Therefore, requested to allow the underlying appeal and set aside the

Impugned Order passed by the Ld. NCLT.

Submissions of Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA) - R2

32. SRA claims that it is a Settled law that discounting of invoices is not

financial debt. The transaction in the present case is a transaction of assignment

of trade receivables and case of similar facts has already been decided in the case

of 1Mudraksh by this Hon'ble Tribunal. The Appellant and Mynd Solutions Pvt.

Ltd. executed a "Master Financiers Agreement dated 09.01.2018", wherein,

'Transaction' and 'Bidding Process' at Clause 1.35 and Clause 5.1.2 of respectively

are defined. The clauses are reproduced hereinbelow for ready understanding of

this Hon'ble Tribunal: -

"Clause 1.35 - Transaction" shall mean all actions carried out between the Supplier. the Buyer, the Buyer's Bank and the Financiers on the M1 Website in respect of a Factoring Unit, including but not limited to bidding for the Factoring Unit, discounting of the Factoring Unit. transfer of the Bid amount, assignment of the Trade Receivables of the Factoring Unit and payment of the amount underlying the Factoring Unit on the Due Date and shall include all the processes for the rediscounting of an already discounted Factoring Unit;

Clause 5.1.2 - Bidding Process - A bid may be placed by the Company directly acting on behalf of the Financier (general authorization) in the event the Financier has adopted/accepted the Auto-Bid feature described more particularly in the Procedural Guidelines. A bid placed through the

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 597 of 2025 14 of 35 Auto Bid feature is deemed to be a valid Bid placed by the Financier and will be open for acceptance by the Suppliers/Buyer (as the case may be)."

33. Even in facts of the case in the judgment of 1Mudraksh, the definition of

"Transaction" is the same.

"9. 'Transaction' is defined in Clause 1.35, which is as follows:

1.35. "Transaction" shall mean all actions carried out between the Supplier, the Buyer, the Buyer's Bank and the Financers on the M1 Website in respect of a Factoring Unit, including but not limited to bidding for the factoring Unit, discounting of the Factoring Unit, transfer of the Bid amount, assignment of the Trade Receivables of the Factoring Unit and payment of the amount underlying the Factoring Unit on the Due Date and shall also include all the processes for the rediscounting of an already discounted Factoring Unit;"

34. On perusal of the above stated definitions, it can be clearly seen that the

definition of the "Transaction" in the present case and in the 1Mudraksh

judgment is exactly the same. This Hon'ble Tribunal gave the following finding

in the case of 1Mudraksh, which is reproduced hereinbelow for ready

understanding: -

"21. It was held that Section 5 (8) does not expressly exclude an interest free loan. The above judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was on entirely different facts, where Lender had advanced a loan without any interest. The present is not a case of financing any loan, rather present is a case of transaction of M1 Platform, on which Platform, both Seller, Buyer and Financers are registered and transaction takes place for sale and purchase of goods and discounting of invoices, payments and recoveries of payment by Financers. The transaction emanates from sale and purchase of goods in the present case. No disbursement was made to the Corporate Debtor, hence,

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 597 of 2025 15 of 35 the transactions cannot be held to be a financial debt. We do not find any error in the order of the Adjudicating Authority agreeing with the view of the RP that claim of the Appellant is only an 'operational debt'."

35. The Successful Resolution Applicant places its reliance on the judgment

of this Appellate Tribunal in the matter of 6Minions Ventures Pvt. Ltd. Vs.

TDT Copper Limited, CA (AT) (INS.) No. 572 of 2022, which has been dealt

with by us herein after in the analysis and evaluation section and contends that

the Financiers/Appellants entered into shoes of the Seller and had become

Operational Creditors in terms of Section 5(20) as well as 21(5) and Section 5(7)

and 5(8)(e) of the Code is not at all applicable.

36. SRA also brings to our notice that the Resolution Plan approved by the

Ld. Adjudicating Authority vide order dated 09.10.2025 is implemented and

monitoring committee stands dissolved. As such, the Respondent No. 2 herein

has made the complete payment to the Creditors. It is further submitted that

the Respondent No. 1 has also filed an application seeking closure of Corporate

Insolvency Resolution Process of M/s RCI Industries Limited which ceases to

exist.

37. Therefore, it contends to dismiss the captioned appeal.

Submissions of Resolution Professional/R-1

38. RP claims that the debt is operational in nature and does not qualify as

a financial debt under the code. The claim of the Appellant arises from

discounting of trade receivables which were originally payable by the

6 Minions Ventures Pvt. Ltd. Vs. TDT Copper Limited, CA (AT) (INS.) No. 572 of 2022 Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 597 of 2025 16 of 35 Corporate Debtor to its suppliers for goods supplied in the ordinary course of

business. Under the TREDS platform operated under the brand name "M1,"

the suppliers uploaded their invoices for goods supplied to the Corporate

Debtor. Upon confirmation of these invoices by the Corporate Debtor, the

Appellant, acting as a factor, bid for such invoices and, once accepted, made

immediate payment to the suppliers. In this process, the Appellant merely

stepped into the shoes of the suppliers for the limited purpose of collecting

the amounts due from the Corporate Debtor. The Corporate Debtor's liability

remained the same discharge of its trade payables for goods purchased and

the Appellant's role was confined to financing the suppliers by paying them

upfront. Importantly, no disbursement was ever made to the Corporate Debtor

itself, and the Appellant's claim is only in respect of dues originally owed by

the Corporate Debtor to its suppliers. Thus, debt is operational in nature and

does not qualify as a financial debt under the code.

39. The debts claimed arise entirely from supply of goods and are therefore

operational in nature as defined under Section 5(21) of the Code. Section 5(20)

further clarifies that an assignee of such debt also qualifies only as an

"Operational Creditor." The mere assignment of these dues to the Appellant

does not alter their character from operational to financial. On the other hand,

a "Financial Debt" under Section 5(8) of the Code necessarily requires

disbursement to the Corporate Debtor against consideration for the time value

of money, which is absent in this case. The Appellant only financed the

suppliers and not the Corporate Debtor. Accordingly, the Ld. Adjudicating

Authority has rightly held that the Appellant cannot be treated as a Financial Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 597 of 2025 17 of 35 Creditor and that the debt in question is operational in nature, consistent

with the statutory scheme of the Code.

40. Furthermore, the resolution professional claims that the assignment of

operational debt does not alter its nature. The Appellant's claim arises from

trade receivables payable by the Corporate Debtor to its suppliers for goods

supplied in the ordinary course of business. These liabilities are clearly

operational in nature under Section 5(21) of the Code. The Master Buyer

Agreement dated 21.12.2018 merely facilitated this mechanism by recording

that once the receivables were discounted, the Corporate Debtor was to repay

the financer i.e., the Appellant on the due date. Clause 7.3 of the Agreement

expressly provides that the Buyer shall pay the monies underlying a

discounted Factoring Unit to the relevant Financer along with any incidental

charges, thereby acknowledging the Corporate Debtor's obligation to

discharge the same. At no point was any amount disbursed to the Corporate

Debtor, nor was there any element of consideration for the time value of

money, which is a core requirement under Section 5(8) to constitute financial

debt.

41. It is further pertinent to mention that Clause 4.3.3 of the Master Buyer

Agreement clearly stipulates the manner in which assignment takes place

upon acceptance of a bid. The clause provides that once a bid is accepted in

accordance with the Procedural Guidelines, the Supplier shall execute a Deed

of Assignment generated on the M1 Website by affixing its digital signature.

Upon such execution, all underlying Trade Receivables stand absolutely

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 597 of 2025 18 of 35 assigned, transferred, and sold to the Financier, who becomes the full legal

and beneficial owner thereof, with exclusive rights to recover and institute

proceedings in its own name. The clause further clarifies that such rights are

conferred on the Financier in its own capacity as assignee and purchaser.

42. The character of the liability under the Code is determined by the

substance of the underlying transaction and not by the identity of the party

enforcing the claim. Here, the transaction remains squarely within the realm

of an operational liability despite its assignment. The assignment only

transferred the receivables from the suppliers to the Appellant, who thereby

acquired the right to recover the same as an Operational Creditor. It is a

settled position in law that the assignment of debt does not alter its nature.

Consequently, the Adjudicating Authority has rightly held that the Appellant

cannot claim the status of a Financial Creditor, as assignment of operational

debt cannot metamorphose it into financial debt.

43. The controversy raised herein stands conclusively settled by the

judgment of this Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal in 1Mudraksh. In that case, an

NBFC engaged in factoring through the TREDS platform had raised an

identical plea that amounts due under discounted invoices constituted

"Financial Debt" by virtue of the assignment of receivables. This Hon'ble

Appellate Tribunal, after examining the substance of the transaction,

categorically held that no disbursement was ever made to the Corporate

Debtor and that the underlying liability emanated from supply of goods. It

was accordingly held that such claims constitute "Operational Debt" only and

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 597 of 2025 19 of 35 assignment does not alter their character. The facts of the present case are

on all fours with the 1Mudraksh matter: (i) the claim arises from invoice

discounting on the TREDS platform, (ii) no loan or disbursement was made

to the Corporate Debtor, (iii) the liability is traceable to trade payables owed

to suppliers, and (iv) the claim was filed under Form C asserting Financial

Creditor status, which was rightly rejected. The Ld. Adjudicating Authority

has therefore correctly applied the ratio of 1Mudraksh and rejected the

Appellant's claim as financial debt. The Impugned Order is thus in complete

conformity with binding precedent and warrants no interference.

44. The regulatory status of the Appellant as Scheduled Commercial Bank

is irrelevant for determining the nature of the debt, under the Code the

character of debt depends on the substance of the underlying transaction, not

the identity of the claimant. It is again reiterated that Corporate Debtor's

Liability arose from the trade payables in the ordinary course of business, and

the Appellant merely acquired these receivables through TREDS; such

assignment does not change the debt's operational nature. Consequently, the

Appellant cannot claim financial creditor merely due to RBI regulation, and

the Impugned Order correctly rejected the attempt to reclassify an operational

Debt as a financial debt.

45. No disbursement was ever made to the corporate debtor which is core

requirement of financial debt not satisfied. A financial debt under Section 5(8)

of the Code requires disbursement of funds to the Corporate Debtor for

consideration of time value of money; without such disbursement, no lender

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 597 of 2025 20 of 35 borrower relationship can arise. In the present case, the Appellant made no

disbursement to the Corporate Debtor, as payments were made directly to

suppliers under the TREDS mechanism to settle trade dues. By acquiring

receivables through assignment, the Appellant merely stepped into the shoes

of the suppliers, and such assignment does not alter the operational nature

of the debt under Sections 5 (20) and 5 (21) of the Code. Since, the essential

requirement of disbursement to the Corporate Debtor is absent, the claim

cannot be classified as financial debt, and the Impugned Order correctly

rejected the Appellant's claim, rendering the Appeal without merit.

46. Resolution Professional does not have jurisdiction to reconsider or

reverse his earlier decision suo motu when the matter was sub judice. The

Appellant later filed its claim in Form B on 13.03.2025, dated 12.03.2025, as

an Operational Creditor, after the Resolution Plan had already been approved

by the members of the CoC on 05.06.2024 and filed before the Hon'ble NCLT

for its approval 07.09.2024. At that stage, the Resolution Professional had no

authority or jurisdiction to revisit, entertain, or re-classify the said claim,

particularly when the issue was already pending adjudication before the Ld.

Adjudicating Authority. Once the matter is sub judice, no authority can alter

its position on the same issue, as doing so would violate judicial discipline

and the doctrine of sub judice. The Resolution Professional's role under the

Code is administrative and non-adjudicatory, and he cannot override or

interfere with matters pending before the Adjudicating Authority under

Section 60(5).

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 597 of 2025 21 of 35

47. In view of the above submissions, it is prayed to dismiss the captioned

Appeal being devoid of any merit.

Analysis and evaluation

48. We have heard the counsels of both sides and also perused the material

placed on record. The principal issue that falls for determination in this appeal

is whether the credit facility extended by the Appellant/South Indian Bank to

the Corporate Debtor/RCI Industries on the TReDS platform, on a reverse-

factoring basis -- under which the Appellant discounted and paid the

Corporate Debtor's suppliers' invoices and took assignment of the underlying

trade receivables -- constitutes 'financial debt' within the meaning of Section

5(8) of the Code, or is 'operational debt' within the meaning of Section 5(21)

of the Code.

49. Ancillary to the above issue, the following points also arise:

 Whether 1Mudraksh(supra), rendered by this Tribunal in relation to

the very same Corporate Debtor and the very same TReDS

mechanism, is squarely applicable, and whether the distinctions

sought to be drawn by the Appellant -- the applicability of Section

5(8)(e) as opposed to only Section 5(8)(f), the "disbursal on behalf of"

argument, and the Appellant's status as a scheduled commercial

bank -- are sufficient to distinguish it;

 Whether the Adjudicating Authority erred in dismissing I.A. No.

3206 of 2023 on the footing that the Appellant had conceded to being

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 597 of 2025 22 of 35 covered by 1Mudraksh, and, if so, whether that vitiates the

Impugned Order;

 Whether the principle in 5Greater Noida v. Prabhjit Singh Soni --

that a verifiable claim, even if in the wrong class, must be considered

-- avails the Appellant in the facts of this case; and

 Whether, the resolution plan having since been approved and fully

implemented, any relief can now be granted to the Appellant, or

whether the appeal has been rendered infructuous.

Statutory scheme per IBC - how it applies to TReDS

50. Section 5(8) of the Code extracted as below.

XXX Section 5. Definitions.

In this Part, unless the context otherwise requires, -- ...

(8) "financial debt" means a debt along with interest, if any, which is disbursed against the consideration for the time value of money and includes--

(a) money borrowed against the payment of interest;

(b) any amount raised by acceptance under any acceptance credit facility or its de-materialised equivalent;

(c) any amount raised pursuant to any note purchase facility or the issue of bonds, notes, debentures, loan stock or any similar instrument;

(d) the amount of any liability in respect of any lease or hire purchase contract which is deemed as a finance or capital lease under the Indian Accounting Standards or such other accounting standards as may be prescribed;

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 597 of 2025 23 of 35

(e) receivables sold or discounted other than any receivables sold on non-recourse basis;

(f) any amount raised under any other transaction, including any forward sale or purchase agreement, having the commercial effect of a borrowing;

[Explanation: For the purposes of this sub-clause, --

(i) any amount raised from an allottee under a real estate project shall be deemed to be an amount having the commercial effect of a borrowing; and

(ii) the expressions, allottee and real estate project shall have the meanings respectively assigned to them in clauses (d) and (zn) of section 2 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (16 of 2016);]

(g) any derivative transaction entered into in connection with protection against or benefit from fluctuation in any rate or price and for calculating the value of any derivative transaction, only the market value of such transaction shall be taken into account;

(h) any counter-indemnity obligation in respect of a guarantee, indemnity, bond, documentary letter of credit or any other instrument issued by a bank or financial institution;

(i) the amount of any liability in respect of any of the guarantee or indemnity for any of the items referred to in sub-clauses (a) to (h) of this clause;

XXX

51. We observe that Section 5(8) of the Code defines "financial debt" as a

debt disbursed against the consideration for the time value of money, and

includes, by way of illustration, specific categories such as money borrowed

against interest (clause (a)), amounts raised under any transaction having the

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 597 of 2025 24 of 35 commercial effect of a borrowing (clause (f) ), and the amount of any liability

in respect of any of the guarantees or indemnities for the foregoing and others

as noted above.

52. Furthermore, Section 5(21) of the Code defines "operational debt" as a

claim in respect of the provision of goods or services, including employment.

Related is the assignment of operational debt, which is defined in Section

5(20) that provides that a person to whom an operational debt is legally

assigned or transferred is an "Operational Creditor."

53. We note that the common thread that runs through every limb of

Section 5(8), including its illustrative sub-clauses, is disbursal against the

consideration for the time value of money; where that touchstone is absent, a

transaction does not become financial debt merely because it can be dressed

in the language of one of the illustrative sub-clauses.

54. On the facts, which are not seriously in dispute, the mechanics of the

transaction are noted herein in this paragraph. Corporate Debtor's suppliers,

having supplied goods in the ordinary course of business, uploaded their

invoices onto the M1 platform. Upon confirmation by the Corporate Debtor as

a buyer, the Appellant bid for and discounted the invoices, paying the

suppliers immediately. The suppliers, in turn, executed Deeds of Assignment

transferring the trade receivables to the Appellant. At no stage did any sum

pass from the Appellant to the Corporate Debtor. What the Appellant

acquired, by assignment, was the very same right the suppliers already

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 597 of 2025 25 of 35 possessed -- the right to be paid the price of goods sold and delivered. The

obligation of the Corporate Debtor to pay the Appellant on the due date is not

a fresh or independent obligation created by a loan; it is the very same trade

payable that always existed, now owed to an assignee instead of to the original

supplier.

55. In the background of the above noted mechanics of the working of the

TReDS system, we are unable to accept the Appellant's submission that this

arrangement is, in substance, buyer-led lending independent of the

underlying sale of goods for the reasons noted herein after. The Bank points

to the "time value of money" element due to the discount, and to interest for

delay. But we find this is ordinary compensation, a compensation a financier

earns for paying a trade receivable early. It is not a consideration for a loan.

It is not money given to let the Corporate Debtor raise funds it did not

otherwise have. This is the very distinction Sections 5(20) and 5(21) draw. An

assignee of an operational debt remains an Operational Creditor. The fact that

the assignee agreed to pay early, at a discount, does not change this. If the

law were otherwise, every factoring arrangement would convert operational

debt into financial debt. That cannot be right. Section 5(20) prevents such

situations.

56. An important judgment on factoring services is 1Mudraksh, which has

been relied upon by the adjudicating authority and is also relied upon by the

respondents. In 1Mudraksh this appellate tribunal held as follows:

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 597 of 2025 26 of 35 "21. It was held that Section 5 (8) does not expressly exclude an interest free loan. The above judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was on entirely different facts, where Lender had advanced a loan without any interest. The present is not a case of financing any loan, rather present is a case of transaction of M1 Platform, on which Platform, both Seller, Buyer and Financers are registered and transaction takes place for sale and purchase of goods and discounting of invoices, payments and recoveries of payment by Financers. The transaction emanates from sale and purchase of goods in the present case. No disbursement was made to the Corporate Debtor, hence, the transactions cannot be held to be a financial debt. We do not find any error in the order of the Adjudicating Authority agreeing with the view of the RP that claim of the Appellant is only an 'operational debt'."

57. In the above noted case, we observe that an NBFC engaged in factoring

through the TREDS platform had raised an identical plea that amounts due

under discounted invoices constituted "Financial Debt" by virtue of the

assignment of receivables. After examining the substance of the transaction,

it was held no disbursement was ever made to the Corporate Debtor and that

the underlying liability emanated from supply of goods. It was accordingly

held that such claims constitute "Operational Debt" only and assignment does

not alter their character. The facts of the present case are similar as here also

(i) the claim arises from invoice discounting on the TREDS platform, (ii) no

loan or disbursement was made to the Corporate Debtor, (iii) the liability is

traceable to trade payables owed to suppliers, and (iv) the claim was filed

under Form C asserting Financial Creditor status, which was rightly rejected.

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 597 of 2025 27 of 35

58. We thus find that the Adjudicating Authority has correctly applied the

ratio of 1Mudraksh and rejected the Appellant's claim as financial debt. The

Impugned Order is thus in complete conformity with binding precedent and

warrants no interference on this argument.

59. Further, we observe that this Appellate Tribunal in the matter of

6"Minions Ventures(supra), dealt with similar set of facts. The issue before

this Tribunal in "Minions" case was "whether the Appellants in the second

appeal (Financiers) are the Financial Creditors as against the Corporate Debtor

or have stepped in to shoes of the Seller as an Operational Creditors and as

such application filed by the Appellants in the second appeal under Section 7

of the Code has rightly been held to be not maintainable and were rightly

relegated to avail their remedy of filing the application under Section 9 of the

Code.?" This Appellate Tribunal answered in favour of Resolution Professional

therein and held as follows: -

"13.......In this transaction, the money was never disbursed much less for the time value as a financial debt to the Corporate Debtor and by virtue of discounting the invoice of the Seller of an amount of Rs.3,42,03,903/- for amount of Rs.1,75,23,133/- the Financiers/Appellants entered into shoes of the Seller and had become Operational Creditors in terms of Section 5(20) as well as 21(5) and Section 5(7) and 5(8)(e) of the Code is not at all applicable."

60. Thus, we find that the finding in 6Minions -- that TReDS-type

financiers' step into the shoes of sellers and become Operational Creditors,

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 597 of 2025 28 of 35 such that recourse under Section 7 is unavailable to them -- independently

reinforces the same conclusion.

61. We do not find the distinctions sought to be drawn by the Appellant to

be substantial. First, the submission that 1Mudraksh proceeded only under

Section 5(8)(f) and not Section 5(8)(e) does not assist the Appellant: whichever

illustrative sub-clause is invoked, the overriding requirement of Section 5(8)

-- disbursal against consideration for the time value of money, to the

Corporate Debtor -- remains unmet on these facts for the reasons noted

above. Second, the submission that disbursal to the supplier "on behalf of" or

"at the instance of" the Corporate Debtor should be treated as disbursal to

the Corporate Debtor conflates the mode of payment with the character of the

underlying liability: the money was paid to discharge a trade debt that the

Corporate Debtor already owed for goods received: it was not paid to place

funds at the Corporate Debtor's disposal for its own use.

62. 3Rajeev Kumar Jain (supra), relied on by the Appellant, does not arise

from a structured, tripartite invoice-discounting platform of the present kind

and does not purport to override the independent, non-negotiable

requirement of consideration for the time value of money running to the

corporate debtor; it is accordingly distinguishable and cannot be read as

creating a conflict with 1Mudraksh.

63. Furthermore 4Somesh A. Naik v. Isinox Ltd. (supra) being an order of

the NCLT cannot be relied upon to depart from 1Mudraksh.

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 597 of 2025 29 of 35

64. Furthermore, the fact that the Appellant is a scheduled commercial

bank governed by RBI's sectoral prudential framework, as opposed to a non-

banking financial company, has no bearing on the classification exercise

under Section 5(8), which turns on the substance of the transaction between

the specific parties and not on the general regulatory character of the

claimant; an identical transaction does not change its character under the

Code depending on whether the financier happens to be a bank or an NBFC.

65. We have considered 2Global Credit Capital Ltd. v. Sach Marketing

Pvt. Ltd. (supra), on which the Appellant places considerable emphasis. The

principle it enunciates -- that the Adjudicating Authority must look to the

real nature of a transaction as reflected in the parties' documents, and not

merely to the label attached to it -- is unexceptionable. In fact the same

principle has been applied by us as noted above. We observe that the

substance of the present transaction discloses a mechanism for early,

discounted realisation of pre-existing trade payables through a regulated

invoice-exchange platform, and not a lending relationship independent of the

underlying sale of goods. Properly applied, therefore, 2Global Credit Capital

does not assist the Appellant; if anything, an honest application of its own

methodology to the documents on this record confirms the operational

character of the debt.

66. We accordingly hold that the transaction between the Appellant and the

Corporate Debtor under the TReDS mechanism does not constitute 'financial

debt' within the meaning of Section 5(8) of the Code, that the Appellant, upon

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 597 of 2025 30 of 35 assignment of its suppliers' receivables, correctly falls to be treated as an

Operational Creditor under Sections 5(20) and 5(21), and that the Resolution

Professional's communication dated 18.12.2022 and the Impugned Order

upholding that classification are correct in law.

67. The Appellant/Bank says the Impugned Order proceeded on a wrong

basis that its counsel had conceded to being covered by 1Mudraksh (supra)

and thus vitiates the Impugned Order. Appellant/Bank contends that the

Adjudicating Authority wrongly recorded a concession by its counsel. We need

not decide if this is true. Even if we assume it is true, it makes no difference

as we have examined the merits ourselves, independently and have reached

the very same result the Adjudicating Authority reached. And we find that the

claim is operational, not financial. An order that reaches the right result

cannot be set aside for a small error in its reasoning. This is so where that

error, even if real, changed nothing. It did not affect the outcome. Thus, it

does not call for interference in appeal.

68. We have also considered the Appellant's reliance on 5Greater Noida

Industrial Development Authority v. Prabhjit Singh Soni (supra) for the

proposition that a claim, even if lodged under the wrong head, must

nonetheless be given due consideration and cannot simply be left out of the

resolution plan altogether. We accept the principle, but it does not help the

Bank/Appellant on the facts before us. Firstly, this judgment was pronounced

during the year 2024 and the correspondence in the facts of the present case

relate to the year 2022. Even then we find that the Resolution Professional

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 597 of 2025 31 of 35 did not ignore the Appellant's claim; he classified it, by a reasoned

communication dated 18.12.2022, as operational debt, and expressly directed

the Appellant to file it in Form B so that it could be considered, and provided

for, in that category. It was the Appellant's own choice, pursued over more

than two years, to decline to file in Form B and to insist instead only on

financial-creditor status, electing to litigate the classification question in I.A.

No. 3206 of 2023 rather than protect its position in both categories. The

Appellant filed its claim in Form B only on 12/13.03.2025 -- after the

Impugned Order dismissing I.A. 3206/2023 (13.02.2025), and well after the

CoC had already approved the resolution plan (05.06.2024) and the approval

application had been filed before the Adjudicating Authority (07.09.2024). On

these facts, the omission of the Appellant's claim from the plan is attributable

not to any illegality in the classification exercise or in the CIRP, but to the

Appellant's own delay in complying with a classification. It was, at all times,

at liberty to comply with under protest while pursuing its legal challenge.

69. We observe that 5Greater Noida cannot be read to require a resolution

plan to provide for a claim that a creditor has, by its own choice, declined to

timely lodge in the correct category. We also record, in agreement with the

submission of Respondent No. 1, that once the plan stood approved by the

CoC and an application for its approval was pending before the Adjudicating

Authority, it was not open to the Resolution Professional to suo motu revisit

a classification that was, at that very time, sub judice before the Adjudicating

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 597 of 2025 32 of 35 Authority in I.A. 3206/2023; judicial discipline required that the question

abide the outcome of that proceeding, which is precisely what occurred.

70. Independently of our findings on the merits of the classification issue,

we note that the resolution plan of the SRA was approved by the Adjudicating

Authority on 09.10.2025, during the pendency of this appeal, and admittedly

stands fully implemented. We are informed payments have been made to

creditors in terms of the plan and the Monitoring Committee has been

dissolved. It is well settled that a resolution plan, once approved and

implemented, attains a binding and largely irreversible character. It cannot

ordinarily be reopened or unsettled at the instance of a claimant except within

the narrow limits of Section 61(3) of the Code. The Appellant/Bank has not

brought its case within those limits, for the reasons noted here in earlier. To

now direct reclassification would upset a completed insolvency resolution

process. It would also prejudice creditors who acted in good faith and would

also prejudice the SRA too. We will not take this course, especially so where

the underlying claim itself fails on merits. This constitutes an independent

and additional ground on which no relief can be granted to the Appellant in

this appeal.

Conclusions

71. For the reasons recorded above, we hold:

 that the credit facility extended by the Appellant to the Corporate

Debtor under the TReDS reverse-factoring mechanism is operational

debt within the meaning of Section 5(21) of the Code, and not financial

debt within the meaning of Section 5(8);

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 597 of 2025 33 of 35  that this conclusion is reinforced by, and consistent with, this

Tribunal's decisions in Mudraksh Investfin Pvt. Ltd. v. Brijesh Singh

Bhadauriya and Minions Ventures Pvt. Ltd. v. TDT Copper Ltd.

(both supra), and is not displaced by Global Credit Capital Ltd. v.

Sach Marketing Pvt. Ltd., Rajeev Kumar Jain v. Uno Minda Ltd., or

Somesh A. Naik v. Isinox Ltd. (all supra), each of which is either

distinguishable on facts or does not, on a proper application of its own

ratio, assist the Appellant;

 that Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority v. Prabhjit

Singh Soni (supra), pronounced in later point of time, does not assist

the Appellant, whose claim was never omitted from consideration but

was, on the Appellant's own election, never timely lodged in the correct

category; and

 that the manner of disposal of I.A. 3206/2023, even if one of its stated

reasons is disputed, does not vitiate a conclusion independently and

correctly arrived at on the merits;

 that, in any event, the resolution plan having since been approved and

fully implemented, with the Monitoring Committee dissolved, no relief

that would unsettle that completed process can now be granted. The

Impugned Order dated 13.02.2025 does not warrant any interference,

and the appeal, being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed.

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 597 of 2025 34 of 35 Orders

72. Based on the above analysis the appeal is dismissed. The Impugned

Order dated 13.02.2025 passed by the Adjudicating Authority in I.A. No. 3206

of 2023 in CP(IB) No. 2688(ND)/2019 is affirmed.

73. It is clarified that this judgment does not preclude the Appellant from

pursuing, in accordance with law, its claim in such manner and to such

extent as may be permissible before the appropriate forum, and nothing

herein shall be read as an expression of opinion on the merits or

maintainability of that claim. All related IAs are also disposed of as per this

order. No order as to costs.

[Justice N. Seshasayee] Member (Judicial)

[Arun Baroka] Member (Technical)

[Indevar Pandey] Member (Technical) New Delhi.

July 29, 2026.

pawan

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 597 of 2025 35 of 35