Welkn Hitech Infrastructure Private ... vs Mr. Manish Agarwal Resolution ...

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 170 of 2026 IN THE MATTER OF: Welkn Hitech Infrastructure Private Limited ...Appellant(s)

Versus

Manish Agarwal Resolution Professional of Aarcity ...Respondent(s) Infrastructure Private Limited and Ors. Present: For Appellant : Mr. Krishnendu Datta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Palash S Singhai, Mr. Harshal Sareen, Ms. Aashima Gautam, Mr. Yash Tandon, Advocates

For Respondents : Mr. Rohit Kumar, Advocate for R1 Mr. Chitranshul A Sinha, Mr. Shivam Shorewala, Ms. Rakshita Bhargava, Ms. Esha Sharma, Advocates for R2

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

27.01.2026 Heard Learned Counsel appearing for Appellant,

Respondent No. 2 and Learned Counsel appearing for Resolution Professional.

2. This Appeal has been filed against an order passed by the Adjudicating

Authority challenging the order dated 06/01/2026 passed in I.A. 350 of 2025.

I.A. No 350 of 2025 is an objection raised by Respondent No. 2 to the Plan

approval, on which the Adjudicating Authority passed following order on

06/01/2025.

"IA/350/2025 On the request of the Ld. Counsel for the Resolution Professional to comply with the order dated 25/11/2025, further time of a week is granted.

The Resolution Professional is expected to place the addendum before the CoC, as per the law and obtain necessary approval, before filing the same before the Adjudicating Authority. List the matter on 04.02.2026"

3. The Appeal has been filed by the SRA challenging the order. It is

submitted that in the Resolution Plan, there is already a statement that

dissenting Financial Creditors shall be paid in priority and period for payment

to the dissenting financial creditors is 11 months, as per earlier order of the

Adjudicating Authority dated 08/10/2025, Affidavit was placed before the

Committee of Creditors (COC) and COC has passed a resolution on

03/11/2025 and the Resolution passed by the COC on 03/11/2025 is as

follows

"B. List of matters to be decided in the voting are as follows:

1. to consider and approve an affidavit stating that the dissenting financial

creditor is to be paid as per the provisions of the code laid down in the IBC and

in priority, has to be filed as per the instruction of hon'ble NCLT vide order

dated 08.10.2025, along with the clarifications provided by successful

resolution applicant in the form of affidavit.

After discussions and deliberations, CoC was requested to consider and pass

the following resolution through e-voting:

"Resolved that the affidavit stating that the dissenting financial creditor is to

be paid as per the provisions of the code laid down in the IBC and in priority,

has to be hied as per the instruction of hon'ble NCLT vide order dated

08.10.2025, along with the clarifications provided by successful resolution

applicant in the form of affidavit be and is hereby approved.

2 of 4 On putting to vote the resolution was approved by 88% voting.

4. It is submitted that direction by Adjudicating Authority to again submit

an addendum and place the addendum before the COC was not necessary

since the affidavit providing that dissenting financial creditors shall be paid

in priority has already been approved by the COC and the present is a case

where the Resolution Plan itself contained all relevant provisions for payment

of dissenting financial creditor and assenting financial creditors.

5. It is submitted that objections which have been raised by the dissenting

financial creditors are objection which need to be considered at the time of

hearing the Plan approval application I.A(Plan)/63/2024.

6. Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 2 submitted that there is no

clear statement in the Resolution Plan with the timeline, or the dissenting

financial creditor shall be paid in priority.

7. In facts of the present case when the case of the SRA is that Resolution

Plan itself contains all relevant provisions and statement for payment of

dissenting financial creditor, we are of the view that it is for the Adjudicating

Authority to consider the I.A(Plan)/63/2024 as well as the objection filed by

Respondent No. 2 and take the final decision.

8. We are thus of the view that there is no requirement of directing the RP

to place again an addendum for approval of the COC. Also we are of the view

that Adjudicating Authority may proceed to hear the I.A(Plan)/63/2024 and

I.A. 350 of 2025 without insisting any further addendum to be placed before

the COC.

9. With the above observations, we dispose the Appeal.

3 of 4

10. Parties may request the Adjudicating Authority to decide the matter

expeditiously.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) Prerana/md

4 of 4