08th December, 2025 Approval of Resolution Plan - Sinnar Thermal Power Limited [IA No. 37 (Plan) of 2025 In C.P. No. IB-2561/(ND)/2019] (3.08 MB)

Page | 1
Interlocutory Application No. 37 (Plan) of 2025 In C.P. No. IB-2561/(ND)/ 2019 Date of Order: 28.11.2025 IN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI BENCH COURT- IV

In

(Under Section 30 (6) and 31 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 read with Regulation 39(4) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016)

IN THE MATTER OF: MR. RAHUL JINDAL (RP for M/s. Sinnar Thermal Power Limited) ... APPLICANT VERSUS COMMITTEE OF CREDITORS OF
SINNAR THERMAL POWER LIMITED ... PERFORMA RESPONDENT AND IN THE MATTER OF: SHAPOORJI PALLON JI & COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED
... OPERATIONAL CREDITOR/ PETITIONER VERSUS SINNAR THERMAL POWER LIMITED ... CORPORATE DEBTOR/ RESPONDENT

CORAM: SHRI MANNI SANKARIAH SHANMUGA SUNDARAM, HON’BLE MEMBER (JUDICIAL) SHRI ATUL CHATURVEDI, HON’BLE MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Order Delivered on: 28.11.2025

PRESENT:

For the RP : Mr. Abhinav Vasisht, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Bishwajit Dubey,
Mr. Somesh Srivastava, Ms. Drishti Kaushik,
Mr. Karan Gandhi,
Mr. Ramakant Rai,
Ms. Abhilasha,
Ms. Akshita,
Mr. Shikhar, Advs. along with
Mr. Rahul Jindal, RP in person

Page | 2
In ORDER PER: BENCH 1. The present application has been filed by Mr. Rahul Jindal, Resolution Professional (RP) of M/s. Sinnar Thermal Power Limited (‘Corporate Debtor’) under the provisions of Section 30(6) read with Section 31(1) of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (‘the Code’) read with Regulation 39(4) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 (‘Regulations’) for approval of the Resolution Plan in respect of M/s. Sinnar Thermal Power Limited (‘Corporate Debtor’) for seeking approval of the Resolution Plan dated 31.01.2025 read with Addendum dated 07.03.2025 and Second Addendum dated 02.06.2025 and clarificatory email dated 10.06.2025 submitted by Consortium of Maharashtra State Power Generation Company Limited ("MAHAGENCO") and NTPC Ltd. ("NTPC") ("Consortium/ Successful Resolution Applicant/ SRA")

Brief Background of the Case:

a) An application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (‘IBC’) was filed by the Operational Creditor i.e., M/s Shapoorji Pallonji & Co. Private Limited against the Corporate Debtor M/s. Sinnar Thermal Power Limited and the said application was admitted by the order of this Adjudicating Authority dated 19.09.2022 and Mr.

Page | 3
In Adarsh Sharma was appointed as Interim Resolution Professional (‘IRP’) of the Corporate Debtor. 3. Background of the Corporate Debtor

a) The Corporate Debtor i.e., M/s Sinnar Thermal Power Ltd. (formerly known as Rattan India Nasik Power Limited) having CIN: U70109DL2007PLC157316 was incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 as a Public Company on 03.01.2007 and registered with Registrar of Companies, Delhi having its registered office at A-150-151, Ground Floor, K.H. No. 407, A Block, Mahipalpur Extension, New Delhi, South West Delhi- 110037. It is involved in Real estate activities with own or leased property. 4. Collation of claims by RP

a) That on 21.09.2022, the erstwhile IRP issued the Public Announcement in accordance with the Code and the CIRP Regulations. The announcement was published at the registered office location (New Delhi) and the principal place of business (Nasik) in the following newspapers: (i) Business Standard (English and Hindi), New Delhi edition; (ii) Jansatta (Hindi), New Delhi edition; (iii) The Times of India (English), Nasik edition; and (iv) Lokmat (Hindi), Nasik edition. b) The Admission Order dated 19.09.2022 was challenged by the suspended management before the Hon’ble National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), New Delhi, by

Page | 4
In filing Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1185 of 2022. That vide order dated 26.09.2022, the Hon’ble NCLAT directed the IRP not to take any further steps in the CIRP. Thereafter, by order dated 19.01.2024, the Hon’ble NCLAT dismissed the Appeal. Consequently, the CIRP of the Corporate Debtor stood revived and proceeded in accordance with the provisions of the Code and the CIRP Regulations. c) Upon resumption of the CIRP, the IRP, after verifying the claims received up to 06.02.2024, proceeded to constitute the Committee of Creditors (“CoC”). The Report for constitution of the CoC was filed before the Hon’ble NCLT on 07.02.2024. For ease of reference, the members of the CoC along with their current voting shares are set out below:

d) On 15.02.2024, upon resumption of the CIRP, the IRP convened the first meeting of the Committee of Creditors (“CoC”). In the said meeting, the CoC approved the resolution

Page | 5
In for appointment of Mr. Rahul Jindal, Insolvency Professional (Registration No. IBBI/IPA-001/IP-P02649/2021- 202124/12948), as the Resolution Professional (“RP”) for conducting the CIRP of the Corporate Debtor. 5. Valuation of the Corporate Debtor a) In accordance with Regulation 35 of the CIRP Regulations, the erstwhile IRP, on 02.03.2024, appointed two registered valuers, Pensar Valuation Private Limited and Protocol Valuers Private Limited, to determine the Fair Value and Liquidation Value of the Corporate Debtor. b) Upon receipt of their valuation reports, the Applicant determined the Fair Value and Liquidation Value of the Corporate Debtor as on the Insolvency Commencement Date, in accordance with the methodology prescribed under Regulation 35 of the CIRP Regulations. The appointed registered valuers submitted their reports providing the fair value and liquidation value of the Corporate Debtor in the valuation report, whereby the Fair Value of the Corporate Debtor was Rs. 4,523 Crores and the Liquidation Value was Rs. 2,967 Crores. c) Thereafter, the RP filed I.A. No. 1642 of 2024 seeking exclusion of 484 days, being the period during which the Hon’ble NCLAT, in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1185 of 2022, had directed the erstwhile IRP not to take any

Page | 6
In steps in the CIR Process. This Hon’ble Tribunal, vide order dated 05.04.2024, was pleased to allow the application and exclude the said 484 days from the CIR Process period. 6. Evaluation and Voting

a) On 15.03.2024, in continuation of the CIR Process, the erstwhile IRP published Form G, fixing 15.04.2024 as the last date for submission of EOIs. NTPC, vide email dated 11.04.2024, sought an extension of 15 days, i.e., until 29.04.2024. In view thereof, the RP, on 12.04.2024, sought in-principle approval from the CoC for extending the EOI deadline and publishing a revised Form G. The CoC, vide email dated 12.04.2024, approved an extension of 14 days, up to 29.04.2024. b) Accordingly, in compliance with Regulation 36A(1) of the CIRP Regulations, the Applicant published a revised Form G, specifying 29.04.2024 as the last date for submission of EOIs and 23.06.2024 as the last date for submission of resolution plans by PRAs. c) On 03.05.2024, the RP convened the 4th CoC meeting to consider approval of the Request for Resolution Plan (including the Evaluation Matrix). As the CoC sought certain modifications to the RFRP, the meeting was adjourned to 10.05.2024. In the reconvened meeting held on 10.05.2024,

Page | 7
In the agenda was placed for voting; however, the CoC rejected the same, and the RFRP could not be approved.

d) On 03.06.2024, the RP convened the 6th CoC meeting and informed the members of the earlier decision in the 5th CoC meeting to extend the timelines, fixing 07.06.2024 as the revised date for issuance of the RFRP (including the Evaluation Matrix) and 06.07.2024 as the deadline for submission of resolution plans. In the 6th CoC meeting, the CoC approved the RFRP and further extended the timelines,

Page | 8
In fixing 21.06.2024 for issuance of the RFRP and 20.07.2024 for submission of resolution plans to the PRA’s listed as above-mentioned table.

e) In compliance with the Code and the CIRP Regulations, the Applicant thereafter provided all PRAs with the RFRP, the Information Memorandum, and other relevant details through a virtual data room, enabling them to undertake due diligence. The PRAs also conducted site visits of the Corporate Debtor’s thermal power plant at Nashik. f) On 12.09.2024, the RP conducted the 11th CoC meeting. After considering the requests of the PRAs, the CoC, in its commercial wisdom, granted a final extension, permitting submission of resolution plans up to 27.09.2024. On 27.09.2024, the RP received the 6 (six) resolution plans from the following PRAs:

g) After noting that six resolution plans had been received from credible power-generating entities, the CoC, in its commercial

Page | 9
In wisdom, approved the RP’s proposal to seek an extension of the CIRP period from 270 days to 330 days, with 83.76% voting share in favour. Pursuant to the resolution passed in the 12th CoC meeting, the Applicant filed I.A. No. 5042 of 2024 seeking a 60-day extension of the CIRP period, from 12.10.2024 (expiry of 270 days) to 11.12.2024 (completion of 330 days).

h) After receipt of six resolution plans from serious contenders in the power sector, including a consortium of public sector undertakings, the RP, CoC, and their respective counsels undertook a detailed analysis of the proposals. Between October and November 2024, multiple rounds of discussions were held with the PRAs. Thereafter, in the 15th CoC meeting held on 08.11.2024, the CoC, in its commercial wisdom and with a view to ensuring value maximization and revival of the Corporate Debtor, resolved to adopt a challenge process mechanism. i) The challenge process was conducted during the 16th CoC meeting held on 14.11.2024, resulting in a substantial enhancement of the values offered by the resolution applicants. Thereafter, during November and December 2024, multiple rounds of negotiations were held with the PRAs to address issues relating to IBC compliance and commercial

Page | 10
In deviations from the RFRP conditions. However, legally compliant and commercially viable final plans were still awaited. Accordingly, the CoC, in its commercial wisdom, approved—with 91.88% voting share, a resolution authorizing the RP to seek a further extension of 60 days beyond 11.12.2024 for completion of the CIRP. j) On 04.06.2025, the 26th CoC meeting was held. The Second Addendum dated 02.06.2025 was presented and taken on record. The CoC was informed that the final review of all six resolution plans had been completed based on legal vetting, due diligence, and Section 29A compliance checks, and the RP placed the corresponding compliance certificates before the CoC. The CoC noted the evaluation, feasibility, and viability of all plans. The list of Final Plans presented before the CoC for evaluation have been summarised below:

Page | 11
In k) Subsequently, on 13.06.2025, the CoC, in its commercial wisdom and after evaluating the feasibility and viability of the final plans, approved the resolution plan dated 31.01.2025, read with the Addendum dated 07.03.2025, the Second Addendum dated 02.06.2025, and the clarification email dated 10.06.2025 (confirming that implementation of the plan is not contingent on DIPAM approval), submitted by the consortium of Maharashtra State Power Generation Company Limited and NTPC Ltd., with 100% voting majority. 7. Details of Resolution Applicant/Payment Schedule

a) Maharashtra State Power Generation Company Limited (“MAHAGENCO”) is a public sector undertaking wholly owned by the Government of Maharashtra, incorporated pursuant to the restructuring of the erstwhile Maharashtra State Electricity Board. Its primary mandate is the generation of electricity. MAHAGENCO has the highest overall generation capacity and the largest thermal installed capacity among all State power generation utilities in India, and is recognised as an eco-friendly power producer. b) NTPC Limited, a Maharatna company of the Government of India, is the largest power generator in the country. Incorporated in 1975 as a wholly Government-owned entity, the Government of India presently holds 51.10% of its equity, with the remainder held by institutional investors and the public. NTPC’s mandate includes the integrated development

Page | 12
In of thermal, hydel, nuclear, and renewable energy projects. It has received significant global recognition—ranking No. 1 worldwide among Independent Power Producers and Energy Traders in the Platts Top 250 Global Energy Companies (2022), and 433rd in Forbes’ Global 2000 list (2023). As of 25.09.2024, its total commissioned capacity, including that of joint ventures and subsidiaries, stands at 76,294 MW. c) The Resolution Applicant has proposed a total plan value of INR 3,800.14 crore (“Total Resolution Amount”) for the Corporate Debtor, to be infused and disbursed on the Payment Date in accordance with the provisions of the Resolution Plan. The allocation of the Total Resolution Amount among the various stakeholders of the Corporate Debtor is set out over-leaf:

Page | 13
In

Page | 14
In

Page | 15
In 8. Compliance of the Resolution Plan with various provisions: The Applicant has submitted the details of various compliances as envisaged by Sections 30(2) of the Code and Regulation 38 & 39 of CIRP Regulations are as under: -

Page | 16
In

Page | 17
In

Page | 18
In

l) It is submitted that the Successful Resolution Applicant has submitted an affidavit dated 19 September 2024, to the Resolution Professional an affidavit under Section 29A of the Code affirming their eligibility under Section 29A of the Code as per the requirement of Section 30(1) of the Code.

Details on Term, Management, Implementation and Supervision of the Resolution Plan:

9.1 The details of implementation as provided by SRA in the Resolution Plan is as follows

Page | 19
In

Page | 20
In

Page | 21
In

Page | 22
In

Page | 23
In

Page | 24
In

Page | 25
In

Page | 26
In

Page | 27
In

Page | 28
In

Page | 29
In

Page | 30
In

9.2 It is pertinent to note that during the course of hearing in the present matter, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Resolution Professional submitted that the plan implementation

Page | 31
In period is of 90 days and the plan has been submitted within 525 days from the date of CIRP order of this Tribunal. 9.3 Further, the realisable amount as provided in the Resolution Plan is as follows:

9.4 The Successful Resolution Applicant has provided in the Resolution Plan for an allocation of INR 75 Crore towards payment of CIRP costs, payable on actual basis. In case the CIRP Costs incurred exceed INR 75 Crores, any such excess CIRP Costs shall be deducted from the amount payable to the Assenting Financial Creditors.

Page | 32
In 9.5 Further Details of Realisable amount as provided in the Plan by the SRA is as follows:

Page | 33
In

Page | 34
In

Page | 35
In

Page | 36
In

Further, Ld. Counsel during the course of hearing of this matter submitted that the entries made at Sr. No.7B i.e. Details of Payment Schedule should be read as 90 days.

Page | 37
In 10. Further, the time frame proposed in the Resolution Plan for obtaining relevant approvals is as under:

Page | 38
In

Page | 39
In 11. Steps taken by SRA post approval of Resolution Plan are as follows:

Page | 40
In

Page | 41
In

Page | 42
In

Page | 43
In

The Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA), in the Resolution Plan, has made provision for the regulatory fee payable to the IBBI under Regulation 31A of the CIRP Regulations, 2016, calculated at 0.25% of the realisable value to creditors, amounting to INR 9,50,03,500/- (being 0.25% of INR 3800.14 crore), and an affidavit confirming the same has been duly furnished by the SRA to the Resolution Professional.

Details and status of the Preferential, Undervalued, Fraudulent and Extortionate transactions application as provided and dealt by the SRA in the resolution plan, is as follows:

Page | 44
In

Page | 45
In

Page | 46
In

Page | 47
In

Waivers, Reliefs and Concessions

As to all the waivers sought by the SRA as provided in the Resolution Plan read along with Addendum dated 07.03.2025 and Second Addendum dated 02.06.2025, it is pertinent to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Embassy Property Development Private Limited v. State of Karnataka & Ors. in Civil Appeal No. 9170 of 2019. The relevant part of the judgement is reproduced herein below:

“39. Another important aspect is that under Section 25 (2) (b) of IBC, 2016, the resolution professional is obliged to represent and act on behalf of the corporate debtor with third parties and exercise rights for the benefit of the corporate debtor in judicial, quasi-judicial and arbitration proceedings. Section 25(1) and 25(2)(b) reads as follows: 25. Duties of resolution professional – (1) It shall be the duty of the resolution professional to preserve and protect the assets of the corporate debtor, including the continued business operations of the corporate debtor. (2) For the purposes of sub-section (1), the resolution professional shall undertake the following actions: - (a) …….. (b) Represent and act on behalf of the corporate debtor with third parties, exercise rights for the benefit of the corporate debtor in judicial, quasi-judicial and arbitration proceedings.

This shows that wherever the corporate debtor has to exercise rights in judicial, quasi-judicial proceedings, the resolution professional cannot short-circuit the same and bring a claim before NCLT taking advantage of section 60(5). 40. Therefore, in the light of the statutory scheme as culled out from various provisions of the IBC, 2016 it is clear that wherever the corporate debtor has to exercise a right that falls outside the purview of the IBC, 2016 especially in the realm of the public law, they cannot, through the resolution professional, take a bypass and go before NCLT for the enforcement of such a right.”

Page | 48
In

In the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Embassy Property Development Private Limited (Supra), as to the waiver, relief and concessions sought in the Resolution Plan, it is clarified that this Adjudicating Authority is not inclined towards granting any such relief prayed for except for what is provided in the Code itself. However, the Successful Resolution Applicant may approach and file the necessary application before the necessary forum/authority in order to avail the necessary relief and concessions, in accordance with respective laws.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

i. This Adjudicating Authority finds that the Resolution Plan was submitted by consortium of MAHAGENCO and NTPC, which are leading PSUs in power sector, with 100% voting in 26th CoC meeting and no provision of the IBC is contravened. ii. We find that the Resolution Plan meets the requirement of being a viable and feasible and for revival of the Corporate Debtor. By and large, there are provisions for making the Plan effective after approval by this Bench. iii. In so far as the approval of the Resolution Plan is concerned, this Adjudicating Authority is duty bound to follow the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of K. Sashidhar v. Indian Overseas Bank (2019) 12 SCC 150, wherein the scope and interference of the Adjudicating Authority in the process of the approval of the Resolution Plan is elaborated as follows: - “35. Whereas, the discretion of the adjudicating authority (NCLT) is circumscribed by Section 31 limited to scrutiny of the

Page | 49
In resolution plan “as approved” by the requisite percent of voting share of financial creditors. Even in that enquiry, the grounds on which the adjudicating authority can reject the resolution plan is in reference to matters specified in Section 30(2), when the resolution plan does not conform to the stated requirements. Reverting to Section 30(2), the enquiry to be done is in respect of whether the resolution plan provides: (i) the payment of insolvency resolution process costs in a specified manner in priority to the repayment of other debts of the corporate debtor, (ii) the repayment of the debts of operational creditors in prescribed manner, (iii) the management of the affairs of the corporate debtor, (iv) the implementation and supervision of the resolution plan, (v) does not contravene any of the provisions of the law for the time being in force, (vi) conforms to such other requirements as may be specified by the Board. The Board referred to is established under Section 188 of the I&B Code. The powers and functions of the Board have been delineated in Section 196 of the I&B Code. None of the specified functions of the Board, directly or indirectly, pertain to regulating the manner in which the financial creditors ought to or ought not to exercise their commercial wisdom during the voting on the resolution plan under Section 30(4) of the I&B Code. The subjective satisfaction of the financial creditors at the time of voting is bound to be a mixed baggage of variety of factors. To wit, the feasibility and viability of the proposed resolution plan and including their perceptions about the general capability of the resolution applicant to translate the projected plan into a reality. The resolution applicant may have given projections backed by normative data but still in the opinion of the dissenting financial creditors, it would not be free from being speculative. These aspects are completely within the domain of

Page | 50
In the financial creditors who are called upon to vote on the resolution plan under Section 30(4) of the I&B Code.”

iv. Also, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Limited vs. Satish Kumar Gupta & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 8766-67 of 2019, vide its judgement dated 15.11.2019 has observed as follows: “38. This Regulation fleshes out Section 30(4) of the Code, making it clear that ultimately it is the commercial wisdom of the Committee of Creditors which operates to approve what is deemed by a majority of such creditors to be the best resolution plan, which is finally accepted after negotiation of its terms by such Committee with prospective resolution applicants.”

v. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Jaypee Kensington Boulevard Apartments Welfare Association v. NBCC (India) Limited, (2022) 1 SCC 401 has held as under:

273.1. The adjudicating authority has limited jurisdiction in the matter of approval of a resolution plan, which is well-defined and circumscribed by Sections 38{2) and 31 of the Code. In the adjudicatory process concerning a resolution plan under IBC, there is no scope for interference with the commercial aspects of the decision of the CoC; and there is no scope for substituting any commercial term of the resolution plan approved by the Committee of Creditors. If, within its limited jurisdiction, the adjudicating authority finds any shortcoming in the resolution plan vis-à-vis the specified parameters, it would only send the resolution plan back to the Committee of Creditors, for resubmission after satisfying the parameters delineated by the Code and exposited by this Court.’ (emphasis supplied).

Page | 51
In

vi. The above view of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jaypee Kensington Boulevard Apartments Welfare Association v NBCC (India) Limited (Supra) is reaffirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its recent decision dated 21.11.2023 in the case of Ramkrishna Forgings Limited Vs Ravindra Loonkar, Resolution Professional of ACIL Limited & Anr., Civil Appeal No. 1527/2022. vii. Thus, from the judgments cited and the statutory framework of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, it is evident that the scope of judicial review available to this Adjudicating Authority under Section 30(2) read with Section 31 is limited to assessing the compliance of the Resolution Plan with the prescribed legal requirements. This Authority is neither empowered nor obligated to delve into or evaluate the commercial wisdom of the Committee of Creditors (CoC), which is paramount and binding, provided it aligns with the provisions of the Code. Upon satisfaction that the proposed Resolution Plan adheres to the statutory mandates, including equitable treatment of stakeholders and compliance with applicable laws, this Bench finds no impediment to granting its approval. 16. ORDERS

i. Subject to the observations made in this order, the Resolution Plan read with Addendum dated 07.03.2025 and Second Addendum dated 02.06.2025 for a total plan value of INR 3800.14 Crores (Rupees Three Thousand Eight Hundred Crore Fourteen Lakh sOnly) along with affidavit and other documents connected to the Resolution Plan that have been filed by the SRA from time to time) is hereby approved. The Resolution Plan shall form part of this order. ii. The approved Resolution Plan as annexed shall be binding on all the stakeholders of the Corporate Debtor and become effective from

Page | 52
In the date of passing of this Order, and shall be implemented strictly as per the term of the plan and implementation schedule given therein. The Resolution Plan shall form part of the order. iii. The Monitoring Agency, as provided in the Resolution Plan shall be set up by the Applicant within 07 days of passing of this order, which shall take all necessary steps for expeditious implementation of the Resolution Plan as per approval. iv. The Moratorium imposed under section 14 of the Code shall cease to have effect from the date of this order. v. The Resolution Professional shall submit the records collected during the commencement of the proceedings to the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Board of India for their record. vi. MoA and AoA of the Corporate Debtor shall be amended and filed with the RoC for information and record as prescribed. While approving the Approved Resolution Plan as mentioned above, it is clarified that the Successful Resolution Applicant shall pursuant to the Resolution Plan approved under section 31(1) of the Code, 2016, obtain all the necessary approvals as may be required under any law for the time being in force within the period as provided for such in law. vii. Liberty is hereby granted for moving appropriate application if required in connection with the implementation of this Resolution Plan. viii. A copy of this Order shall be filed by the Resolution Professional with the Registrar of Companies, NCT of Delhi & Haryana. ix. The Resolution Professional shall stand discharged from his duties with effect from the date of this Order, save and except those duties that are enjoined upon him for implementation of the approved Resolution Plan. x. The Resolution Professional is further directed to hand over all records, licences, plans, approvals of premises/factories/documents and all other relevant records

Page | 53
In relating to the Corporate Debtor, available with it to the SRA to finalize and co-operate on the further line of action required for starting the operation and implementation of this Plan. The Resolution Applicant shall have access to all the records, documents and the premises through the Resolution Professional to finalize the further course of action required for starting and running the operations of the Corporate Debtor on a clean slate basis. xi. The Registry is directed to send copies of the order forthwith to IBBI, all the parties and their Ld. Counsels for information and for taking necessary steps. xii. Certified copy of this order may be issued, if applied for, upon compliance with all requisite formalities.

           Sd/-                              

ATUL CHATURVEDI
MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Sd/-
MANNI SANKARIAH SHANMUGA SUNDARAM
MEMBER (JUDICIAL)