04th May, 2026 Approval of Resolution Plan - Alpine Realtech Private Limited [I.A. No. 54, 4249 & 5221/ND/2024 and I.A. No. 412/ND/2025 in CP(IB)-1221/ND/2018] (7.17 MB)

I.A. No. 54 of 2024, I.A. No. 4249 of 2024, I.A. No. 5221 of 2024 and I.A. No. 412 of 2025 in CP(IB)-1221/ND/2018 Punjab and Sind Bank vs. M/s Alpine Realtech Private Limited Page 1 of 79 IN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI SPECIAL BENCH (COURT – II) I.A. No. 54/ND/2024, I.A. No. 4249/ND/2024, I.A. No. 5221/ND/2024 and I.A. No. 412/ND/2025
IN CP(IB)-1221/ND/2018 IN THE MATTER OF:

(Under Section: 7 of IBC, 2016)

Punjab & Sind Bank

… Financial Creditor 

Versus M/s Alpine Realtech Private Limited

 … Corporate Debtor 

AND IN THE MATTER OF I.A. NO. 54/ND/2024:

(Under Section: 30(6) of IBC, 2016)

Anju Agarwal (IRP of M/s Alpine Realtech Private Limited) 73, National Park, Lajpat Nagar IV,
New Delhi-110024

… Applicant/IRP Versus Punjab & Sind Bank Through Authorised Representative
4th Floor, PSB Building,
T Sohanlal Marg, Rajendra Place,
Near Imly Restaurant, New Delhi-110008

 … Respondent No. 1 

Ekdant Welfare Society
Through its Authorized Representative B-1/10, Lower Ground Floor,
Hauz Khas, South, New Delhi-110016

 … Respondent No. 2 

AND IN THE MATTER OF I.A. NO. 4249/ND/2024:

(Under Section: 60(5) of IBC, 2016)

Ekdant Welfare Society
Through its Authorized Representative UGF-01/R1, Designer Arch E-Homes, Surajpur, Site-C, Greater Noida, U.P.

… Applicant Versus

Page 2 of 79 Anju Agarwal (IRP of M/s Alpine Realtech Private Limited) ASC Group, C-100, Sector-2, NOIDA, U.P.-201301 … Respondent No. 1

Mr. Pramod Gupta AR for Homebuyers B1/10, Lower Ground Floor,
Hauz Khas, New Delhi -110001

 … Respondent No. 2 

AND IN THE MATTER OF I.A. NO. 5221/ND/2024:

(Under Section: 60(5) of IBC, 2016)

Anju Agarwal (IRP of M/s Alpine Realtech Private Limited) 73, National Park, Lajpat Nagar IV,
New Delhi-110024

… Applicant/IRP Versus M/s Alpine Realtech Private Limited B-1/46, Lane No. 3,
New Ashok Nagar, New Delhi-110096

 … Respondent No. 1 

Punjab & Sind Bank Through Authorised Representative
4th Floor, PSB Building,
T Sohanlal Marg, Rajendra Place,
Near Imly Restaurant, New Delhi-110008

 … Respondent No. 2 

Ekdant Welfare Society
Through its Authorized Representative B-1/10, Lower Ground Floor,
Hauz Khas, South, New Delhi-110016

 … Respondent No. 3 

Axis Bank Through Authorised Representative
Mr. Santosh Singh

 … Respondent No. 4 

Commercial Space Buyers Through Authorised Representative
B-211, 1st Floor, Surya Nagar,
Chandra Nagar, Ghaziabad U.P.-201011

 … Respondent No. 5 

AND IN THE MATTER OF I.A. NO. 412/ND/2025:

(Under Section: 60(5) of IBC, 2016)

Page 3 of 79 Uttar Pradesh State Industrial Development Authority Through its Authorized Representative Prashasanik Bhawan, EPIP, Industrial Area,
Surajpur–5, Kasna, Greater NOIDA, U.P.- 20131

… Applicant Versus Anju Agarwal (IRP of M/s Alpine Realtech Private Limited) RR Law Offices, MR-01, Regus SCT,
Sector-136, NOIDA, U.P.-201305

 … Respondent

Under Section: 30(6) r/w 31 of IBC, 2016 Order delivered on: 17.04.2026 CORAM:

SH. ASHOK KUMAR BHARDWAJ, HON’BLE MEMBER (J)

SH. RAVINDRA CHATURVEDI, HON’BLE MEMBER (T)

PRESENT:

For the RP : Adv. Rashmi Raj, IRP Anju Agarwal, Adv. Kiran Bisht, Adv. Nita, Adv. Yashika For the UPSIDA : Adv. Ankit Agarwal and Adv. Koustubh Desai ORDER PER: SHRI ASHOK KUMAR BHARDWAJ, MEMBER (J) IA-54/ND/2024: The captioned application has been preferred under Section 30(6) r/w Section 31 of IBC, 2016 r/w Regulation 39(4) of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 (‘CIRP Regulations’), seeking approval of the Resolution Plan dated 29.02.2024 along with two subsequent addendums thereto dated 05.03.2024 and 07.03.2024 submitted by Savfab Developers Private Limited
(‘Resolution Applicant’) as approved by members of Committee of Creditor

Page 4 of 79 (‘CoC’) unanimously with 99.84% voting in the 27th meeting of CoC held on 18.03.2024 and e-voting concluded on 29.07.2024.
2. Stating succinctly, the CP(IB)-1221/ND/ 2018, was preferred by Punjab & Sind Bank (‘Financial Creditor’) against M/s Alpine Realtech Private Limited (‘Corporate Debtor’) under Section 7 of IBC, 2016, which was admitted to Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) vide order dated 12.03.2019 and Ms. Anju Agarwal (‘Applicant/IRP’) was appointed as IRP.

The Applicant made a public announcement in prescribed form viz. Form A, as provided in Section 13 and 15 of IBC read with Regulation 6 of the CIRP Regulations, 2016 in New Delhi Edition of Financial Express (English) and Jansatta (Hindi), dated 17.03.2019 asking the creditors to submit their claims qua the Corporate Debtor on or before 28.03.2019.

In the 1st CoC meeting convened on 15.04.2019, resolution for appointment of Applicant as RP could only be passed with 44.69% vote share in favor against the requisite 66% voting share. Ergo, in terms of Regulation 17(3) of the CIRP Regulations, 2016 the Applicant herein continued to perform function as RP.

The Applicant further appointed two Registered Valuers namely Sapient Services Private Limited and Tech Mech International Private Limited for Assets classes Securities or Financial Assets in compliance of Regulation 27 of CIRP Regulations to determine the Fair Value and Liquidation Value of the CD. The copy of valuation report could be filed only after the order dated 02.02.2026 passed by this Tribunal. The summary of the valuation report reads thus:-

Page 5 of 79

The Applicant also filed an application being C.A. No. 452(ND)/2019 for the appointment of Mr. Pramod Kumar Gupta as Authorized Representative for the Homebuyers which was allowed vide order dated 21.05.2019 of this Tribunal.

The Applicant, in compliance of Regulation 36A(1) of CIRP Regulations had published Form G, inviting Expression of Interest (EOI) on 16.07.2019 in the newspapers viz. Financial Express (English) Delhi NCR & Uttar Pradesh Edition & Jansatta (Hindi) Delhi NCR & Uttar Pradesh Edition, wherein the last date for submission of EoI mentioned was 31.07.2019. Copy of Form G is annexed as Annexure A-7 to the application. The Applicant received only one (01) EoI from One City Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., and apprised the CoC in its 4th meeting regarding the same. The CoC deliberated and discussed the extension of CIR process period in its 5th meeting convened on 21.08.2019 and the same was extended vide order dated 11.09.2019 passed by this Tribunal. Pursuant to extension of CIRP period, the Applicant issued fresh invitation for EoI in

Page 6 of 79 prescribed form viz. Form G dated 16.10.2019, copy of which is annexed as Annexure A-12 to the application. Resultantly, only one individual viz. Mr. Satish Singh could submit its Resolution Plan which was rejected on eligibility ground and the Applicant apprised the CoC regarding the same. Later the CoC, in its 7th meeting decided to amend the eligibility criteria to allow even the individuals to submit EoI and also sought for extension of CIRP period under second proviso of Section 12(3) of the Code which was allowed in terms of order dated 29.11.2019 passed by this Tribunal. The Applicant thus published fresh invitation for EoI in Business Standard (English) Delhi NCR Edition, Jansatta (Hindi) Delhi NCR Edition dated 30.11.2019, copy of which is annexed as Annexure A-15 of the application. In response to Form G dated 30.11.2019, the Applicant received three EoI, however no resolution plan could be submitted by the Prospective Resolution Applicant (PRA). The Applicant informed the CoC that one of the PRA is keen to submit a Resolution Plan and requested for grant of additional time for submitting it, which the CoC unanimously allowed granting 15 days of additional time in terms of Regulation 36B(6) of the CIRP Regulations, 2016. Subsequently, extension of CIRP was again sought by the CoC which this Tribunal allowed vide order dated 18.02.2020.

In the meantime, due to COVID-19 pandemic, a nationwide lockdown was declared and the Applicant apprised the CoC about the order by Hon’ble Supreme Court, Hon’ble NCLAT and insertion of Regulation 40C in CIRP Regulations, 2016.

Page 7 of 79 9. However, the CoC in its 12th meeting convened on 02.09.2020 deliberated on revised resolution plan submitted by Mr. Satish Singh (PRA) but the Resolution Plan was not found viable and CoC decided to issue fresh Form G which was published in Financial Express (English) Delhi NCR Edition and Jansatta (Hindi) Delhi NCR Edition on 23.09.2020. Resultantly five (05) PRAs submitted EoI out of which following were included the list of PRAs:- a. JAMS Commodities & Services Private Limited b. M/s Keystone, Estate India Private & Ms. Neha Tapdiya & Mrs. Swastika Tapdiya
c. Mr. Rajeev Gulati & Mr. Padam Singh
d. Turnaround Consultants Private Limited

Later, the Applicant apprised CoC members that the PRAs showed inability to continue further and considered issuing fresh Form G. In response to fresh Form G, the Applicant received nine (09) EoI’s from the Prospective Resolution Applicants (“PRA”), however only four (04) Resolution Plans were received which were put before the CoC in its 18th meeting held on 06.07.2022.
11. While considering the proposed plans, the representative of the sole Financial Creditor, i.e., Punjab & Sind Bank could raise concern that the amount offered to it is on the lower side and the same should be enhanced so that the plans could become worth consideration. The four (04) PRAs submitted their revised/modified Resolution Plan. Upon discussions and deliberations, the members of the CoC formulated the parameter as the tie-breaker formula in the event of the tie amongst the Resolution Plans. In the 20th CoC meeting, the

Page 8 of 79 Applicant apprised the CoC regarding the compilation of the scores of the four PRA’s on both quantitative and qualitative parameter which is as under:-

Accordingly, the Applicant placed all the four modified Resolution Plans before the members of the CoC for their consideration and requested them to vote upon the same. However, all the plans put before the CoC regarding were disapproved by the members of CoC, upon which the Applicant apprised the CoC members about the liquidation provision under Section 33 of the Code read with Regulations 39B, 39C and 39D of the CIRP Regulations, 2016 with proposal for the sale of the Corporate Debtor as going concern during liquidation. The resolution was put before the CoC for voting and it was unanimously approved by the CoC with 100% voting share. The anticipated liquidation cost in terms of Regulation 39B of the CIRP Regulations, 2016 was also discussed which was disapproved by the members of the CoC with 100% voting share. The relevant excerpt of the resolution reads thus:- “54. That during the twenty first meeting of the CoC, the Applicant also apprised the members of CoC regarding the provision of Regulation 39C of the CIRP Regulations, 2016 which proposes for the Sale of Corporate Debtor as a going concern or the business of Corporate Debtor as a going concern during liquidation. After discussions and deliberations, following resolutions were put up for voting before the CoC: "RESOLVED THAT, pursuant to Regulation 39C of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for

Page 9 of 79 Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016, and other applicable provisions, of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and in accordance with rules and regulations made thereunder, that the liquidator may first explore sale of the corporate debtor as a going concern under clause (e) of regulation 32 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016, if an order for liquidation is passed under section 33, be and is hereby recommended by the CoC." "RESOLVED FURTHER THAT the entire balance sheet consisting of assets and liabilities of the Corporate Debtor may be sold under the recommended "sale as going concern." "RESOLVED FURTHER THAT Resolution Professional be and is hereby authorized to do all such acts, deeds and things as may be required necessary or incidental thereto."

That it is pertinent to mention here that the above-mentioned resolution was unanimously approved by the CoC with 100% voting share.

55. That the members of CoC also deliberated upon Regulation 39B of the CIRP Regulations, 2016 which requires the CoC to ascertain the anticipated Liquidation Cost. After discussions and deliberations, following resolutions were put up for voting before the CoC: "RESOLVED THAT, pursuant to Regulation 39B of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016, and other applicable provisions, of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and in accordance with rules and regulations made thereunder, the anticipated Liquidation cost of:
56. Rs. 1,64,52,024, for first six months;
57. Rs. 1,71,90,658 for twelve months; as put up in the Annexure-2 of the minutes, be and is hereby approved by the CoC."

Page 10 of 79 "RESOLVED FURTHER THAT Resolution Professional be and is hereby authorized to do all such acts, deeds and things as may be required necessary or incidental thereto."

That it is pertinent to mention here that the above-mentioned resolution was disapproved by the members of the Committee of Creditors with 100% voting share.”

In the 20th CoC meeting, resolution pertaining to Regulation 39D CIRP Regulations, 2016 requiring CoC to decide fee of the Liquidator was discussed and put for voting which was disapproved with 100% voting share. Para 56 of the application pertaining the resolution put forth reads thus:-
“56. That the members of CoC in the twenty first meeting also deliberated upon Regulation 39D of the CIRP Regulations, 2016 which requires the Committee of Creditors to decide the fees of the Liquidator @50% of the fee table as per Regulation 4 of the Liquidation Process Regulation, 2016. After discussions and deliberations, following resolutions were put up for voting before the CoC: "RESOLVED THAT, pursuant to Regulation 39D of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016, and other applicable provisions, of the Anju Agerwei Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and in accordance with rules and regulations made thereunder, that the fees of the liquidator @ 50% of the fee table as per Regulation 4 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016, be and is hereby approved by the CoC." "RESOLVED FURTHER THAT Resolution Professional be and is hereby authorized to do all such acts, deeds and things as may be required necessary or incidental thereto."

Page 11 of 79 That it is pertinent to mention here that the above-mentioned resolution was also disapproved by the members of the Committee of Creditors with 100% voting share.”

Resultantly, the Applicant could move an application seeking liquidation of the Corporate Debtor under Section 33(1)(a) of the Code viz. I.A. No. 4142 of 2022. It is pertinent to note that Ekdant Welfare Society filed application bearing no. I.A. No. 2189 of 2023 seeking direction to Respondent in the IA viz. the RP to convene CoC meeting and for putting resolution for extension of CIRP period for voting before the CoC. The IA could be dismissed by this Tribunal vide order dated 16.05.2023. However, being aggrieved, the Ekdant Welfare Society moved an appeal before Hon’ble NCLAT by preferring Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1119 of 2023 wherein following directions vide order dated 28.08.2023 was passed:- “7. In view of the facts of the present case, we are of the view that Let Resolution Professional convene a meeting of CoC to put the plan which received the highest vote for revoting as per Regulation 39. The RP shall file an affidavit indicating the result of the revoting within three weeks. In the meantime, the Adjudicating Authority shall not proceed with the Liquidation Application.”

As has been mentioned in Para 63 of the application, in compliance of the order dated 28.08.2023 of Hon’ble NCLAT, the Applicant convened 22nd CoC meeting and put the following resolution for e-voting from 04.09.2023 till 15.09.2023. Para 63 of the application reads thus:- “63. Thereafter, in compliance of Order dated 28.08.2023, the Applicant herein convened twenty second meeting of the CoC on 01.09.2023 wherein, the Applicant apprised regarding the Order passed by the

Page 12 of 79 Hon’ble Appellate Tribunal. Furthermore, after discussions and deliberations, the following resolutions were put for e-voting from 04.09.2023 till 15.09.2023:-
“Savfab Developers Private Limited
RESOLVED THAT, pursuant to Section30(3) & (4) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and Regulations 39 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 and other applicable provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and in accordance with rule and regulations made thereunder, the resolution plan submitted by Savfab Developers Private Limited, be and is hereby approved by the CoC” “RESOLVED FURTHER THAT pursuant to Section 30(6) of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 the interim resolution professional shall submit the resolution plan as approved by the committee of creditors to the Adjudicating Authority.” “RESOLVEDFURTHER THAT Resolution Professional be and is hereby authorized to do all such acts, deeds and things as may be required necessary or incidental thereto.”
Copy of minutes of twenty second meeting of Committee of Creditors convened on 01.09.2023 is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE A - 40.”

One of the FC sought extension of timeline for e-voting which the Applicant apprised Hon’ble NCLAT and the Appellate Tribunal could grant liberty to the Applicant/RP to consider the same vide order dated 18.09.2023. The Applicant/RP extended the timeline of e-voting till 16.10.2023 wherein the CoC approved the Resolution Plan of Savfab Developers Private Limited by 99.84%

Page 13 of 79 voting share in favour. The e-voting result in terms of 22nd CoC meeting is on record at Annexure A-43 Volume V of the application which reads thus:-

In terms of the e-voting, the Hon’ble NCLAT could dispose of the Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1119 of 2023 vide order dated 19.10.2023. The relevant excerpt of the order reads thus:- “3. When this Appeal was taken on 28.08.2023, following order was passed by this Tribunal:-
“28.08.2023: Heard Learned Counsel for the Appellant.

Page 14 of 79 2. This Appeal has been filed against the Order dated 16.05.2023 passed by the Adjudicating Authority by which I.A. No. 2189 of 2023 filed by the Applicant has been rejected.

3. Appellant’s case is that 09th August, 2022 was the last date of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP in short) and the Plan which was submitted in the CIRP was to be voted and voting took place from 03.08.2022 to 09.08.2022 and on 09th August, 2022 plan was not approved with 54% of the Committee of Creditors (CoC in short) vote. It is submitted that as per Regulation 39 of CIRP Regulation, 2016, the plan which received the maximum vote was to be again revoted and for that purpose, the Application was filed on 23rd August, 2022 which remain pending and could be decided only on 16th May, 2023.

4. Learned Counsel for the RP submits that since the CIRP was closing on 09th August, 2022, no meeting for revoting of the plan could be convened.

5. Regulation 39, Sub-Regulation (3), 2nd Proviso provides “Provided further that where none of the resolution plans receives requisite votes, the committee shall again vote on the resolution plan that received the highest votes, subject to the timelines under the Code.”

6. In view of the above, the plan which receives the maximum votes have to be voted again.

7. In view of the facts of the present case, we are of the view that Let Resolution Professional convene a meeting of CoC to put the plan which received the highest vote for revoting as per Regulation

8. The RP shall file an affidavit indicating the result of the revoting within three weeks. In the meantime, the Adjudicating Authority shall not proceed with the Liquidation Application.

List this Appeal on 18th September, 2023.”

In pursuance of the order dated 28.08.2023, the meeting of the CoC was convened to put the plan which received the highest vote for re-voting. An Affidavit has been filed by the Resolution Professional dated 18.10.2023 by which in paragraphs 8, 9 and 10, following has been stated:-

Page 15 of 79 “8. That the e-voting of the 22nd CoC meeting commenced from 04.09.2023 at 02:00 P.M. and concluded on 16.10.2023 at 08:00 PM. post two extensions in the voting period whereby, the Resolution Plan was approved by the members of CoC by 99.84% voting share in favour. Copy of evoting results of the 22nd CoC meeting convened by the deponent on 01.08.2023 is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE A-4.

9. That, meanwhile during the hearing held on 18.09.2023, the Ld. Counsel for the Resolution Professional prayed to allow further time to file an affidavit as directed on 08.08.2023 due to the reason that RP had received the request from the financial creditor for extending the time for voting. Accordingly, the Hon'ble NCLAT allowed to file the final outcome of the e-voting post its conclusion, vide its order dated 18.09.2023. Copy of Order dated 18.09.2023 passed by this Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE A-5.

10. That in the light of the above facts stated, it is most humbly submitted that the deponent shall act in accordance with the resolution passed by the members of CoC in 22nd meeting of CoC dated 01.08.2023 and proceed with filing of an Application under Section 30(6) read with Section 31 of the Code read with Regulations made thereunder as the Resolution Plan which was put for revoting has garnered more than the requisite voting share of 66% in favour of the Resolution Plan.”

We have already extended the time for filing the Affidavit by our order dated 18.09.2023. Now the CoC having approved the Resolution Plan with voting share of 99.84%, Resolution Professional seeks liberty to file an application before the Adjudicating Authority for approval of the Resolution Plan.

Considering the facts of the present case, the highest Resolution Plan having now received the majority of votes, we are of the view that the Resolution Professional may file an application before the Adjudicating Authority for approval of the plan which may be done within three weeks from today.

Page 16 of 79 7. In view of the subsequent events, as noticed above, nothing survives to be decided in this Appeal. With the direction aforesaid, the appeal is disposed of.”

Consequently, the Applicant withdrew I.A. No. 4142 of 2022 preferred for liquidation of the Corporate Debtor and the same could be allowed vide order dated 08.11.2023 passed by this Tribunal.

Thereafter, the Applicant convened 23rd CoC meeting on 31.10.2023 apprising the CoC of outcome of Appeal and reiterated the expenses incurred by the IRP/RP for purpose of CIRP. The agenda was put forth for e-voting but the CoC disapproved the resolution. Copy of minutes of 23rd CoC meeting convened on 31.10.2023 along with e-voting results is annexed and marked as Annexure A–47 to the application.

In the meantime, C.A. No. 102 of 2020 filed by Axis Bank was disposed of in terms of order dated 02.01.2024 of this Tribunal with direction to CoC to re- examine the Resolution Plan with the SRA after examination of claim of Axis Bank filed by way of the aforementioned application and also extended CIRP period by 30 days. Consequently, the Applicant conducted 24th CoC meeting on 29.01.2024 and 30.01.2024, wherein CoC was apprised about the order dated 02.01.2024. The claim of Axis Bank could be provisionally admitted and claim of homebuyers to the extent of margin contribution was admitted, reducing the earlier claim filed by homebuyers inclusive of bank loan amount, which resulted in following revision:-

Page 17 of 79

The Applicant convened 25th CoC meeting on 21.02.2024 wherein the Resolution Applicant presented revised Resolution Plan dated 12.02.2024 and certain queries were raised and in 26th CoC meeting dated 06.03.2024, the Resolution Applicant could submit revised Resolution Plan 29.02.2024 and Addendum dated 05.03.2024, however the CoC put forth certain queries and concern before the Resolution Applicant. Later again, the Applicant convened 27th CoC meeting on 18.03.2024, wherein the members of the CoC asked the Applicant to put the Resolution Plan dated 29.02.2024 along with two subsequent addendums thereto for voting from 23.03.2024 till 30.03.2024, however the voting period was extended till 29.07.2024. The CoC approved the Resolution Plan dated 29.02.2024 along with two subsequent addendums with 99.84% voting share and the relevant excerpt of the resolution reads thus:- “RESOLVED THAT the Resolution Plan received from Savfab Developers Private Limited dated 29th February, 2024 alongwith two subsequent addendum thereto and response received from the SRA on clarifications sought on certain aspects, which were duly initialed by the Chairman for purpose of identification was placed on the table of the meeting, be and is hereby approved in the CIR Process of Alpine Realtech Private Limited, Corporate Debtor;”

Page 18 of 79 22. In the 29th CoC meeting held on 31.07.2024, the members of CoC concurred with view of the Applicant to file application for approval of Resolution Plan alongwith condonation of delay, and moved a resolution which was put for e-voting from 01.08.2024 to 03.08.2024, wherein the CoC also approved the professional fees of the advocates engaged during the CIRP period. The copy of the minutes of 29th CoC meeting along with e-voting result is marked and annexed as Annexure A-59 to the application.

It is submitted by the Applicant that the entire CIRP expenses has been incurred by her, however, the same has not been paid to her till date despite availing services of all the professionals and service providers. The Applicant could move I.A. No. 4932 of 2020 before this Bench which was disposed of vide order dated 28.03.2023 with direction to IBBI to consider the same. Pursuant to the order dated 28.03.2023, the Applicant moved representation before the IBBI for non-payment of the CIRP cost and fees to the IRP for which IBBI issued letter dated 06.12.2023 and held that the fee claimed by the Applicant is reasonable and is entitled to receive the same. The relevant excerpt of the letter dated 06.12.2023 issued by the IBBI reads thus:- “c) In order to check the reasonability, if we check the fees with the Regulation 34B (2) of the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016, the fees claimed by the RP is less than the minimum fee of Rs. 2.00 lacs for Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) period. Also, the fee was approved by the Committee of Creditors (CoC) vide 2nd CoC meeting dated 14th May 2019. Accordingly, we are of the view that the fee claimed by the IP in the

Page 19 of 79 instant case is reasonable and is entitled to receive the fee as approved by the CoC asper prevailing Regulations.”

The Applicant has placed on record all the CIRP expenses in a tabular format in Para 89 of the application which reads thus:-

Page 20 of 79

It is also submitted by the Applicant that the aforementioned cost incurred was approved for initial 270 days of CIRP which was continued in pro rata basis for extended CIRP period, however the resolution for ratification of the cost placed before the CoC was disapproved by the CoC. The Para 90 indicating the submission reads thus:- “90. It is submitted that from the above stated cost incurred, the emphasis is on cost incurred for following professionals whose professional fees was approved for initial 270 days of CIRP which was continued on pro rata basis for the extended CIRP period. However, post 270 days, the resolution for ratification of their cost was placed before

Page 21 of 79 COC on various occasions with discounted fees, however, the COC members have not approved their fee: ”

The Applicant has espoused that out of total expenses of Rs. 2,17,39,520/- CIRP expenses incurred, the Punjab & Sindh Bank has already paid an amount Rs. 15,42,365/- as part of their contribution which will be reimbursed to the CoC members as per their realisation. However, still an amount of Rs. 2,01,62,155/- is yet to be paid to the IRP/Applicant and an amount of Rs. 1,65,21,628/- is yet to be approved by the COC. I.A. No. 4249 of 2024: 27. The captioned application has been preferred by Ekdant Welfare Society with prayer reading thus:- “A. issue appropriate directions to Respondent No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 to act in accordance with the provisions of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and the regulations made thereunder; B. issue appropriate directions to Respondent No. 1 to present the resolutions proposed by the homebuyers for ratification of unpaid CIRP costs which are in line with the principles of reasonableness enshrined in the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and the June 2018 Circular;

Page 22 of 79 C. issue appropriate directions for investigation, inspection into the conduct of Respondent No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 during the CIRP process of the Corporate Debtor” 28. It is noted that in 33rd CoC meeting held on 27.05.2025 pursuant to order dated 14.05.2025, resolution was passed regarding the payment of CIRP cost. The relevant excerpt from the 33rd CoC meeting reads thus:-

Page 23 of 79

Page 24 of 79

X X X

Page 25 of 79

The e-voting result of the 33rd CoC meeting is also on record filed in I.A. No.- 54 of 2024 which reads thus:-

Page 26 of 79 30. As has been averred in I.A. No. 4249 of 2024 preferred by Ekdant Welfare Society, as and when they visited the site on which the security was purportedly deployed, they found the security insufficient and mostly there was one guard that too not in uniform. In view of such stand, we are of the view that the cost on account of security should not be Rs. 53,79,364/-. The casual arrangement for security during the CIRP period should cost roughly 17 Lacs approx. We are also unable to appreciate that the legal expense should be Rs. 32,93,896/-. Most of the process involved the action of the IRP. Thus, the litigation expenses could be in respect of the applications filed before this Tribunal and an appeal preferred before Hon’ble NCLAT. It is not the case of the IRP that she had to institute or defend any proceedings qua the CD, outside the CIRP. Normally the IRP/RP who is an expert professional should conduct the process himself/herself. It would not be gainsaid that an IP, when act as Liquidator is expected to do adjudication. So, he/she should not incur the expenses on legal affairs casually. Nevertheless, since, it is not the case of the Ekdant Welfare Society that the CoC had not approved the legal expenses, it is difficult for us to comment upon such expenses, as unlike the absence of uniformed security guard on the site, regarding legal expenses, it cannot be said that the legal proceedings had not taken place. Thus, it is difficult for us to say that the legal expenses should be denied to the IRP. As far as the fees of the IRP is concerned, as per Schedule II of the IBBI (CIRP) Regulations, 2016, in such cases where quantum of admitted claim is more than 50

Page 27 of 79 Crores, the fee of RP should be Rs. 2 Lacs per month. In the present case, the quantum of claims admitted being more than 50 Crores, but less than Rs. 500 Crores, the IRP would be entitled to the fee of Rs. 2 Lacs per month. However, the fee is fixed, by keeping in view the statutory period of CIRP, which is extendable to 330 days. When IRP/RP is entitled to incentive viz. performance linked incentive fee for timely resolution as also for value maximisation, in such cases where the process is unduly prolonged, the fee of the RP needs to be moderated. We may also be not oblivious of the fact that in the present case the CIRP commenced on 12.03.2019, while the aforementioned Scheduled was introduced only with effect from 13.09.2022. Thus, we find it appropriate that in view of the prolonged process, from 12.03.2019 to 13.09.2022, the fee of IRP/RP would be Rs. 1 Lac per month viz. Rs. 42 Lacs. For the period of 11 months (330 days) from 13.09.2022 i.e. extendable period of CIRP, the fee would be Rs. 2 Lacs per month viz. Rs 22 Lacs. It is seen from clause 2 of the Schedule that the fee payable is till the time of submission of application for approval of resolution plan. The application for approval of plan was filed on 04.10.2024. If minimum fees as per schedule is paid to RP even for the period beyond 330 days, the arrangement may work as incentive for RP to prolong the CIRP, which may act as counter-thesis to the object of IBC, particularly the timelines prescribed therein. Ideally for the period beyond 330 days the RP should not be entitled to any fee. However, such warning needs to be given to him on expiry of 180 days, so that the RP expediate

Page 28 of 79 the process and avoid prolonging the same like she has done in the present case. No one can be oblivious of the fact that the RP is at the helm of CIRP and the effectiveness and success thereof depend upon his/her efficiency, integrity and commitment. In any case since in the present case, the IRP performed function beyond 330 days with impression that she would be remunerated for her work, for the period beyond 330 days after 13.09.2022 i.e. from 14.08.2023 till 04.10.2024, for this period of CIRP viz. 14 months and 20 days, her monthly remuneration would be Rs. 1 Lac per month. Thus, in total the fee of the IRP would be Rs. 78,66,666/-. Such amount of the fees would be payable to the IRP. As far as other claims raised by her are concerned, the same appears to be quite reasonable. The CIRP cost would be calculated accordingly. The cost would be payable by SRA. Subject to aforementioned the I.A. No. 4249 of 2024 and I.A. No. 5221 of 2024 stand disposed of.

The Applicant has filed a Compliance Certificate/Form-H which is annexed as Annexure A-64 to the application. The fair value and liquidation value of the CD, the proposal for distribution of the amount amongst the stakeholders, and other compliances as mentioned in the “Compliance Certificate” reads thus:-

X X X

Page 29 of 79

Page 30 of 79

The Applicant has given declaration that the Resolution Plan is in compliance of provisions of Code and Regulation which reads thus:-

Page 31 of 79

Page 32 of 79

Page 33 of 79 33. The Applicant has espoused that the SRA would submit an amount of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- as performance guarantee within 7 days in lieu of Letter of Intent dated 31.07.2024 which is marked and annexed as Annexure A-63 of the application. However, we note that the Letter of Intent dated 31.07.2024 is on record but no copy of such Performance Guarantee could not be placed on record.

The affidavit of eligibility of Successful Resolution Applicant under Section 29A of the Code has been furnished and is also on record at Annexure A-65 to the application which reads thus:-

Page 34 of 79

Page 35 of 79

The brief of amounts proposed to be paid towards the CIRP of the Corporate Debtor pursuant to the implementation of the proposed Resolution Plan is provided in Part III of the Resolution Plan which is as under:-

The Resolution Plan also contain the clause regarding Capital Structure of the Corporate Debtor which is envisaged in Clause 3.2 in Schedule 2 of the Resolution Plan which reads thus:- “……..Post implementation of the actions set out in Paragraphs 3.1 to 3.2 above: the capital structure of the Corporate Debtor shall be as follows: ”

The term of plan and its implementation schedule is provided in Clause 4 of Part II and Clause 14 of the Resolution Plan which reads as under:-

Page 36 of 79

X X X

Page 37 of 79

Page 38 of 79

Page 39 of 79

Page 40 of 79 38. The infusion of funds is envisaged in Schedule 2 of the Resolution Plan which reads thus:-

The Management and Control of the affairs of the Corporate Debtor is provided in Clause 5 of Part II of the Resolution Plan which reads thus:-

Page 41 of 79

In Part II of the Resolution Plan, the SRA specifically averred that the plan is not in contravention of any provision of law. The relevant excerpt reads thus:- “6.3 The Resolution Applicant hereby confirms that this Plan is not in contravention of the provisions of any Applicable Law and confirms to such other requirements as may be specified by the Board.”

The Resolution Plan dated 29.02.2024 along with part of the Addendum dated 05.03.2024 and Addendum dated 07.03.2024 is available on record at Volume VII (Page 947-1038 of the application). Another Addendum i.e. Addendum No. 3 dated 15.05.2025 submitted in terms of order dated 14.05.2025 is also available on DMS as Additional Document dated 21.07.2025. As per records available, Addendum dated 05.03.2024 was incomplete in the application and complete Addendum could be filed vide Additional Affidavit dated 02.04.2026 in terms of order dated 13.03.2026. All the three Addendums reads thus:-

Page 42 of 79

Page 43 of 79

Page 44 of 79

X X X

Page 45 of 79

X X X

Page 46 of 79

Page 47 of 79

The Applicant/IRP was directed to file valuation report in terms of order dated 02.02.2026 passed by this Tribunal. The Valuation Report of Land & Building, Plant & Machinery and Securities & Financial Assets of the Corporate Debtor is on record. The relevant excerpt of the summary of the valuation report reads thus:- “3. That two Registered Valuers were appointed for each category of assets, namely Land and Building, Plant and Machinery, and Securities & Financial Assets. The valuation of each category of asset, as determined by the respective valuers, has been duly reflected in the summary table set out hereinbelow

”

Page 48 of 79 43. We have heard the counsels and perused the resolution plan submitted by the SRA as also the documents on record.

In the wake of the revised Form H submitted by the Applicant/ RP, we note that the fair value and liquidation value of the CD is Rs. 39,60,89,378/- and Rs. 29,59,69,121/- respectively. Thus, we find that the value of the plan is more than the fair value of the Corporate Debtor, assessed by the valuators appointed by the RP in terms of the provisions of Regulation 27 of CIRP Regulations, 2016 r/w Regulation 35 thereof. 45. Besides, we note that in terms of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Limited Through Authorised Signatory vs. Satish Kumar Gupta & Ors. [Civil Appeal No. 8766- 67 of 2019], it is the subject matter of commercial wisdom of CoC to take decision regarding the amount of bid offered by SRA and the scope for this Tribunal to interfere on such issues is negligible. The above view was also reiterated by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ebix Singapore Private Limited vs. Committee of Creditors of Educomp Solutions Limited & Anr. (Civil Appeal No. 3224 of 2020) wherein the Hon’ble Court ruled that the scope of examination of the application for approval of Resolution Plan by this Tribunal is confined to the provisions of Section 30(2) of IBC, 2016. Para 153 of the Judgment reads thus: - “153. Regulation 38(3) mandates that a Resolution Plan be feasible, viable and implementable with specific timelines. A Resolution Plan whose implementation can be withdrawn at the behest of the successful Resolution Applicant, is inherently unviable, since open-ended clauses on modifications/withdrawal would mean that the Plan could fail at an

Page 49 of 79 undefined stage, be uncertain, including after approval by the Adjudicating Authority. It is inconsistent to postulate, on the one hand, that no withdrawal or modification is permitted after the approval by the Adjudicating Authority under Section 31, irrespective of the terms of the Resolution Plan; and on the other hand, to argue that the terms of the Resolution Plan relating to withdrawal or modification must be respected, in spite of the CoC’s approval, but prior to the approval by the Adjudicating Authority. The former position follows from the intent, object and purpose of the IBC and from Section 31, and the latter is disavowed by the IBC’s structure and objective. The IBC does not envisage a dichotomy in the binding character of the Resolution Plan in relation to a Resolution Applicant between the stage of approval by the CoC and the approval of the Adjudicating Authority. The binding nature of a Resolution Plan on a Resolution Applicant, who is the proponent of the Plan which has been accepted by the CoC cannot remain indeterminate at the discretion of the Resolution Applicant. The negotiations between the Resolution Applicant and the CoC are brought to an end after the CoC’s approval. The only conditionality that remains is the approval of the Adjudicating Authority, which has a limited jurisdiction to confirm or deny the legal validity of the Resolution Plan in terms of Section 30 (2) of the IBC. If the requirements of Section 30(2) are satisfied, the Adjudicating Authority shall confirm the Plan approved by the CoC under Section 31(1) of the IBC.”

As recently as on 27.02.2026, in Torrent Power Ltd. vs Ashish Arjunkumar Rathi and Others (2026 SCC OnLine SC 325), Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated that the commercial wisdom of the CoC is paramount. Relevant excerpt of the judgment reads thus:- “Commercial Wisdom of the CoC Paramount:

Page 50 of 79 12. Having concluded that neither of the issues raised by the appellants establishes any modification of the Resolution Plan or any material irregularity in the conduct of the RP, the challenge stands stripped of its factual foundation. What remains is, in substance, a challenge to the commercial decision taken by the CoC. The IBC leaves no scope for judicial intervention even here. 12.1. It has been the consistent view of this Court that the commercial wisdom of the CoC cannot be interfered with by the NCLT, the NCLAT or this Court as was held in K. Sashidhar v. Indian Overseas Bank, (2019) 12 SCC 150 : (2019) 4 SCC (Civ) 222 : (2019) 213 Comp Cas 356 as under: “55. Whereas, the discretion of the adjudicating authority (NCLT) is circumscribed by Section 31 limited to scrutiny of the 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

Page 51 of 79 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 the financial creditors who are called upon to vote on the resolution plan under Section 30(4) of the I&B Code. xxx 58. Indubitably, the inquiry in such an appeal would be limited to the power exercisable by the resolution professional under Section 30(2) of the I&B Code or, at best, by the adjudicating authority (NCLT) under Section 31(2) read with Section 31(1) of the I&B Code. No other inquiry would be permissible. Further, the jurisdiction bestowed upon the appellate authority (NCLAT) is also expressly circumscribed. It can examine the challenge only in relation to the grounds specified in Section 61(3) of the I&B Code, which is limited to matters “other than” enquiry into the autonomy or commercial wisdom of the dissenting financial creditors. Thus, the prescribed authorities (NCLT/NCLAT) have been endowed with limited jurisdiction as specified in the I&B Code and not to act as a court of equity or exercise plenary powers.” (Underlining by us) 12.2. Similarly, in Kalyani Transco, decided on 26.09.2025, a three- Judge Bench of this Court held as follows: “179. It can thus be seen that this Court has held that the legislature purposefully did not include a means to challenge the commercial wisdom exercised by the CoC. This makes a challenge to the same non - justiciable. It has been further held that a challenge cannot be raised

Page 52 of 79 against the decision making of the CoC unless and until the grounds for challenge as given in the Code are satisfied. Any interference in the paramount objective of the CoC of exercising its commercial wisdom would amount to the Court rewriting the law and going against the very objectives of the IBC. 180. We are therefore of the opinion that in the present matter as well, the CoC exercised its commercial wisdom while approving the Resolution Plan whereby the Appellant - Jaldhi was classified as a contingent creditor and such a decision is deemed to be non - justiciable by this Court in view of K. Sashidhar (supra) which has been subsequently followed in a catena of judgments. The NCLT, and the NCLAT have also approved the Resolution Plan, and in light of the settled principle of law, we find no question of law being raised by the Appellant - Jaldhi and therefore, the appeal filed by it is liable to be dismissed.” (underlining by us) 12.3. We note the observations in Essar Steel India Limited, clarifying that once the NCLT is satisfied that the CoC has applied its mind to the statutory requirements spelt out in sub-section (2) of Section 30 it must necessarily pass the resolution plan, as under: “73. …Thus, while the Adjudicating Authority cannot interfere on merits with the commercial decision taken by the Committee of Creditors, the limited judicial review available is to see that the Committee of Creditors has taken into account the fact that the corporate debtor needs to keep going as a going concern during the insolvency resolution process; that it needs to maximise the value of its assets; and that the interests of all stakeholders including operational creditors has been taken care of. If the Adjudicating Authority finds, on a given set of facts, that the aforesaid parameters have not been kept in view, it may send a resolution plan back to the Committee of Creditors to re-submit such plan after satisfying the aforesaid parameters. The reasons given by the Committee of Creditors while approving a resolution plan may thus be looked at by the

Page 53 of 79 Adjudicating Authority only from this point of view, and once it is satisfied that the Committee of Creditors has paid attention to these key features, it must then pass the resolution plan, other things being equal.” (Underlining by us) 12.4. We also note the observations in Pratap Technocrats Private Ltd. v. Monitoring Committee of Reliance Infratel Limited, (2021) 10 SCC 623 : (2021) 228 Comp Cas 1 wherein this Court categorically held as follows: “29. The jurisdiction which has been conferred upon the adjudicating authority in regard to the approval of a resolution plan is statutorily structured by sub-section (1) of Section 31. The jurisdiction is limited to determining whether the requirements which are specified in sub-section (2) of Section 30 have been fulfilled. This is a jurisdiction which is statutorily-defined, recognised and conferred, and hence cannot be equated with a jurisdiction in equity, that operates independently of the provisions of the statute. The adjudicating authority as a body owing its existence to the statute, must abide by the nature and extent of its jurisdiction as defined in the statute itself. 44. …the jurisdiction of the adjudicating authority and the appellate authority cannot extend into entering upon merits of a business decision made by a requisite majority of the CoC in its commercial wisdom. Nor is there a residual equity based jurisdiction in the adjudicating authority or the appellate authority to interfere in this decision, so long as it is otherwise in conformity with the provisions of IBC and the Regulations under the enactment.” (Underlining by us) 12.5. The issue is no longer res integra, the law having been settled that the commercial wisdom of the CoC enjoys primacy and cannot be supplanted by judicial review. Neither the NCLT, nor the NCLAT nor even this Court is empowered to substitute its assessment in place of the commercial decision arrived at by a requisite majority of the CoC.”

Page 54 of 79 47. As far as the issue of reliefs and concessions which fall in the jurisdiction of different Government Authorities, and/or are subjected to the provisions of different laws for the time being in force are concerned, it is made clear that the amount payable by the SRA in terms of the plan to different creditors, stakeholders, and to keep the Corporate Debtor as a going concern cannot be subject to any condition, assumptions, relief/ concessions and/ or qualification. It also needs to be underlined that the provisions of Section 31(4) of IBC, 2016 mandates the Resolution Applicant to obtain the necessary approval required under any law for the time being in force within a period of one year from the date of approval of the resolution plan by the Adjudicating Authority under Section 31 of the IBC, 2016. In terms of the provisions of Section 14 of the Code even during the period of CIRP, no default in payment of current dues is a precondition for continuation of the License, Permit, Registration and similar rights. Thus, even during the moratorium period, some of the facilities forming part of the reliefs and concessions sought are made available to the CD only when there is no default in payment of the current dues. On approval of the Resolution Plan, the SRA/CD cannot be put on a better footing by exempting it from paying its legitimate dues under the law. For the sake of convenience, the explanation below Section 14 of the code is extracted below:- “14. Moratorium.—(1) Subject to provisions of sub-sections (2) and (3), on the insolvency commencement date, the Adjudicating Authority shall by order declare moratorium for prohibiting all of the following, namely: - …..

Page 55 of 79 (d) the recovery of any property by an owner or lessor where such property is occupied by or in the possession of the corporate debtor.

Explanation.- For the purposes of this sub-section, it is hereby clarified that notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, a licence, permit, registration, quota, concession, clearance or a similar grant or right given by the Central Government, State Government, local authority, sectoral regulator or any other authority constituted under any other law for the time being in force, shall not be suspended or terminated on the grounds of insolvency, subject to the condition that there is no default in payment of current dues arising for the use or continuation of the license, permit, registration, quota, concession, clearances or a similar grant or right during the moratorium period;” (Emphasis Supplied)

In any case, in terms of the provisions of Sections 13 and 15 of the IBC 2016 read with Regulations 6, 6A, 7, 8, 8A, 9 and 9A of IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations 2016, all the claimants such as Operational Creditors, Financial Creditors, Creditors in Class, Workmen and Employees and other Creditors can raise their claims before the IRP/RP. The claims are dealt with by IRP in terms of the provisions of Section 18(1)(b) of the IBC, 2016 and by RP in terms of the provisions of Section 25(1)(b) thereof read with Regulations 12A, 13 and 14 of the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016. Thereafter, the RP prepares an Information Memorandum in terms of the provisions of Regulation 36(2) of IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016. The Memorandum

Page 56 of 79 contains inter alia a list of creditors containing the range of creditors, the amounts claimed by them, the amount of their claim admitted and the security interest if any in respect of such claims. As has been provided in Regulation 36(1) of the Regulations (ibid), the Information Memorandum is required to be submitted in electronic form to each member of CoC, on or before 95th day from the Insolvency commencement date. As has been provided in Regulation 36A of the Regulations the RP publish brief particulars of the invitation for Expression of Interest in Form G of Schedule I to the Regulations at the earliest i.e. not later than 60th day from the Insolvency commencement date, from interested and eligible Prospective Resolution Applicants to submit Resolution Plans. As can be seen from Regulation 36B of the Regulations, the RP shall issue Information Memorandum Evaluation Matrix (IMEM) and request for Resolution Plans, within 5 days of the date of issue of provisional list of eligible Prospective Resolution Applicants (required to be issued under Regulation 36A(10) of the Regulations). It is with reference to such Information Memorandum Evaluation Matrix that the RP issues request for Resolution Plan. The request for Resolution Plan details each step in the process and the manner and purposes of interaction between the Resolution Professional and the Prospective Resolution Applicant. The Resolution Plan submitted after consideration of the IMEM and RFRP is then examined by the Committee of Creditors. Nevertheless, it needs to satisfy the requirements of Regulation 37 and 38 of the extant Regulations. Once the plan is approved by the CoC, in terms of the provisions of Regulations 39 of the aforementioned Regulations, it virtually becomes a contract entered into between the CD represented through RP, SRA and

Page 57 of 79 the Creditors of the CD. On being approved by this Adjudicating Authority, by operation of Section 31(1) of the Code, the plan becomes binding on the Corporate Debtor and its employees, members, creditors (including the Central Government, any State Government or any local authority to whom a debt in respect of the payment of dues arising under any law for the time being enforced such as authorities to whom statutory dues are owed, guarantors and other stakeholders involved in the Resolution Plan. Thus, Section 31(1) of IBC, 2016, takes care of most of the relief/concession/waiver solicited by the Resolution Applicant. 49. Besides, in terms of the provisions of Section 32A, for an offence committed prior to the commencement of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, the liability of the CD ceases and the CD is not liable to be prosecuted from the date of approval of Resolution Plan by this Adjudicating Authority, if the Resolution Plan results in change of management or control of the CD to a person who was not promotor or in the management or control of the CD or a related party of such a person or a person with regard to whom the concerned Investigating Agency has reason to believe that he had abated or conspired for the commission of the offence and has submitted or filed a report or a complaint to the relevant statutory authority or Court. In such cases, where the prosecution is instituted against the CD, during CIRP, the CD stands discharged qua the same from the date of approval of the Resolution Plan. Nevertheless, every person who was a designated partner as defined in clause (j) of Section 2 of the Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008, “an officer who is in default” as defined in Clause (60) of Section 2 of Companies Act, 2013 or was in any manner in charge of, or responsible to the CD for the

Page 58 of 79 conduct of his business or associated with the CD in any manner and was directly or indirectly involved in the commission of an offence as per the report submitted or complaint filed by Investigating Agency shall continue to be liable to be prosecuted and punished for such an offence committed by the Corporate Debtor notwithstanding the Corporate Debtors’ liability ceases after approval of the plan. 50. In the wake of the provisions of Section 32A(2) of the Code, no action is taken against the property of the Corporate Debtor in relation to an offence committed prior to the commencement of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process of the CD, where such property is covered under Resolution Plan approved by this Authority under Section 31, which result in the change in the control of the CD to a person who was not a promotor or in the management or control of the Corporate Debtor or related party of such person or a person with regard to whom the Investigating Agency has reason to believe that he had abated or conspired for commission of the offence and has submitted or filed a report or complaint to the relevant statutory authority or Court.
51. The action against the property of the Corporate Debtor as referred to in Section 32A of the Code includes the attachment, seizure, retention or confiscation under such law as may be applicable to the Corporate Debtor. One may also be not oblivious of the fact that in the backdrop of provisions of Section 31(3)(a) of the IBC, 2016, the moratorium order passed by the Adjudicating Authority under Section 14 ceases to have effect. In sum and substance, the SRA/CD would be entitled to no other relief/concession/waiver except those, which are available to it as per the provisions of Section 31(1) and 32A of IBC, 2016.

Page 59 of 79 52. On 15.10.2025, we directed the SRA to file additional affidavit in view of undertaking given by his Counsel during the course of hearing regarding additional payment of Rs. 8.5 Crores to UPSIDA outside the Resolution Plan. In compliance of the same, the SRA filed an affidavit dated 11.11.2025, the relevant excerpt of which reads thus:- “2. I state that the present affidavit is being filed in compliance of order dated 15.10.2025 passed by this Ld. Adjudicating Authority in I.A. No. 412/ND/2025, which was filed by Uttar Pradesh State Industrial Development Authority (“UPSIDA”) objecting to the approval of resolution plan submitted by the SRA.
3. I state that during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP”) of the Corporate Debtor, UPSIDA filed its claim, which was admitted to the extent of Rs.16.08 Crores.
4. I state that the SRA while submitting the Resolution Plan, had assumed the liquidation value of the Corporate Debtor to be Rs. 2.00 Crores, and on that basis, proposed to make a payment of Rs. 0.26 Crores to UPSIDA in accordance with Section 53 of the Code. The said plan further provided that in the event the amount payable to UPSIDA is increased- whether on account of any variation in the liquidation value of the Corporate Debtor or pursuant to any order passed by a Court- such excess amount shall be payable by the allottees. The relevant extract of the resolution plan is reproduced hereunder: “5.2.1 Uttar Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation (UPSIDC): Based on the information provided by the IRP, the Resolution Applicant understands that the UPSIDC has filed a claim of INR 16,08,28,54/- (Indian Rupees Sixteen Crore Eight Lacs Twenty-Eight Thousand Five Hundred Forty-One) against the Corporate Debtor for amounts pertaining to the period prior to the Insolvency Commencement Date (“UPSIDC Claim Amount”).

Page 60 of 79 According to the Resolution Applicant, the Liquidation value of the Corporate Debtor stands as Rs. 2,00,00,000/- (Indian Rupees Two Crores only), while the total claim of all secured creditors, as per the Information Memorandum amounts to Rs. 1,26,18,04,313/- (Rs. One Hundred Twenty-Six Crores Eighteen Lacs Four Thousand Three Hundred and Thirteen only). Therefore, an amount of INR 26,00,000/- (Indian Rupees Twentu Six Lacs only), inclusive of all expenses, will be payable to UPSIDA in accordance with Section 53 of the Code. Upon payment of the settlement proposed to UPSIDC, all claims of UPSIDC against the Corporate Debtor in relation to the period prior to the NCLT Order Date shall stand extinguished, settled, abated, and satisfied in perpetuity (including all Claims relating to UPSIDC set out in Appendix III). In case the amount payable to UPSIDC is increased, due to difference in the liquidation value of the corporate debtor ascertained by the registered valuers appointed by the IRP or due to any order of the court then such excess amount payable to UPSIDC shall be contributed by the Allottees on proportionate basis as per their respective claim amount, without any objection.” 5. I state that the Committee of Creditors (“CoC”) of the Corporate Debtor approved the resolution plan submitted by the SRA in its 27th meeting dated 18.03.2024. Thereafter, the Resolution Professional filed an application being I.A. No. 54/2024 under Section 30(6) of the Code seeking approval of the Resolution Plan by this Ld. Adjudicating Authority. Subsequently, UPSIDA filed its objections vide I.A. No. 412/ND/2025, alleging that the amount proposed to be paid to it under the Resolution Plan was not in accordance with law.
6. I state that during the hearing on 14.05.2025, the RP informed this Adjudicating Authority that the liquidation value of the Corporate Debtor was Rs. 29.60 Crores. On the basis of this information, the counsel for the SRA sought time to revise and enhance the amount

Page 61 of 79 payable to UPSIDA in accordance with Section 53 of the Code. Upon such request, this Ld. Adjudicating Authority was pleased to direct the RP to convene a meeting of COC and place the revised proposal of the SRA with regard to payment to be made to UPSIDA before the COC. A copy of Order dated 14.05.2025 is annexed and marked as ANNEXURE-2.
7. I state that, the SRA revised the payment to be made to UPSIDA from Rs. 26 lacs to Rs. 3.52 Crores and accordingly submitted an Addendum to Resolution Plan incorporating the said revision. The relevant extract of the Addendum is reproduced below: “The liquidation value of the Corporate Debtor, as disclosed by the IRP during the NCLT hearing held on 14.05.2025, stands at INR 29.60 Crores. As per Section 53 of the Code, after deducting the amount of INR 2.02 Crores, the alleged CIRP Cost claimed by the IRP in IA-5221/24, the amount payable to UPSIDC, shall be INR 3.52 Crores (Indian Rupees Three Crores and Fifty-Two Lakh only), representing 12.75% of the liquidation value net of alleged CIRP costs. In the event the alleged CIRP cost of INR 2.02 Crores, as claimed by the IRP, is reduced pursuant to the outcome of IA No. 5221/2024, the amount payable to UPSIDC shall stand revised/ increased proportionately, in accordance with the calculation set out hereinabove. Upon payment of the aforesaid settlement amount proposed to UPSIDC, all Claims of the UPSIDC against the Corporate Debtor in relation to the period prior to the NCLT order for the Plan approval shall stand, settled, and satisfied in perpetuity (including all Claims relating to UPSIDC set out in Appendix III). Furthermore, the payment of aforesaid settlement amount to UPSIDC is in compliance with Section 30(2)(b) and is fair and equitable.

Page 62 of 79 The payment of Rs. 3.52 Crores to UPSIDC shall be made within 30 days in priority to the payment to the Financial Creditors in compliance of Regulation 38(1) of CIRP Regulations, 2016.” A copy of the Addendum dated 15.05.2025 submitted by SRA is annexed and marked as ANNEXURE-3. 8. I state that in light of the Order dated 15.10.2025 passed by this Adjudicating Authority, the SRA proposes to make a payment of Rs. 8.50 Crores to UPSIDA in the following manner:
a. Rs. 3.52 Crore within 30 days from the date of approval of Plan. b. Rs. 2.49 Crore within 120 days from the date of approval of Plan. c. Rs. 2.49 Crore within 210 days from the date of approval of Plan. Upon payment of the said amount of Rs. 8.50 Crores to UPSIDA, all claims of UPSIDA against the Corporate Debtor pertaining to the period prior to the date of approval of the Resolution Plan by this Hon'ble Adjudicating Authority shall stand settled and satisfied in perpetuity.
9. I state that out of Rs. 8.50 Crores payable to UPSIDA, Rs. 3.52 Crores will be paid from the funds of the SRA (as per the Addendum submitted earlier), and the balance Rs. 4.98 Crores shall be recovered from the allottees on pro-rata basis as per their respective claim amounts, in accordance with Clause 5.2. 1 of the Resolution Plan.
10. I state that in the event any allottee fails to contribute their respective share of the additional amount payable to UPS IDA, such allottee shall be dealt with in accordance with Clause 7.2.4 of the Resolution Plan. 11. I state that I have read and understood the contents of this affidavit which has been drafted under my instructions by my counsel and no part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed therefrom.”

Page 63 of 79 53. On 13.03.2026, this Tribunal sought clarification from the IRP and SRA in terms of which IRP and SRA filed separate Additional Affidavit which was taken on record on 06.04.2026. Order dated 06.04.2026 reads thus:- “IA-5221/ND/2024, IA-4249/ND/2024, IA-54/ND/2024, IA- 412/ND/2025: On 13.03.2026 we passed the following order:- “On perusal of the record, we are of the view that the Resolution Professional need to comment upon the following aspects:-
i. On what date the report regarding constitution of CoC was filed before this Tribunal and the decision to constitute the CoC was taken by the Resolution Professional ? ii. On what date Form-G inviting expression of interest, in response to which the SRA submitted is plan was issued ? iii. On what date the performance bank guarantee/performance security was furnished by the SRA ?
iv. Why the complete copy of first addendum dated 05.03.2024 is not placed on record ? v. What is the source of fund of SRA ? vi. Whether the undertaking given in terms of the Regulation 38(1)(b) of IBBI CIRP Regulation, 2016 given in the plan is correct undertaking?
vii. How the requirement of Regulation 38(3) of IBBI CIRP Regulation, 2016 is met? viii. Whether the timeline given for implementation of the resolution plan is reasonable and fair?

The CoC in consultation with SRA should relook at the timeline. Let the Resolution Professional as well as SRA file an affidavit dealing with the aforementioned aspects within two weeks from today. List on 06.04.2026 at 02:00 pm.”

Page 64 of 79 With reference to the aforementioned order the SRA has filed an additional affidavit dated 26.03.2026/06.04.2026. The text of the affidavit reads thus:-

Page 65 of 79

Page 66 of 79

Page 67 of 79

Page 68 of 79

Page 69 of 79

Page 70 of 79

Page 71 of 79

The Ld. Counsel for Resolution Professional handed over a copy of the Bank Guarantee dated 27.03.2026 in terms of which the Punjab National Bank has committed to remit the amount of guarantee, in the event of there being default in implementation of the resolution plan.
During the course of hearing Ld. Counsel for the Resolution Professional could also explain her stand regarding various issues noted in order dated 13.03.2026 and submitted that the report regarding constitution of CoC was filed on 08.04.2019. According to her, the Form-G inviting expression of interest was published thrice viz. on 16.10.2019, 23.09.2020 and 08.05.2022. She also amplified that the performance bank guarantee initially furnished by SRA on 27.10.2023 and the same could be updated on 31.03.2025, 21.05.2025 and 27.03.2026. The guarantee updated on 27.03.2026 is valid till 31.03.2027. Ld. Counsel for Resolution Professional and SRA also explained that the mistake in Form-H (certificate furnished by Resolution Professional) could be on account of misunderstanding of the language of the Form by the Resolution Professional and in fact the SRA never contributed to any failure to implementation of any resolution plan. The Ld. Counsel for SRA submitted that the SRA would be infusing Rs. 10.00 Cr. in CD and an amount of Rs. 8.5 Cr. to be payable to land owning agency i.e. NOIDA would also be paid by SRA.

Page 72 of 79 It is submitted on behalf of the SRA that the time line given by the SRA is practicable and the SRA would ensure that if the resolution plan is approved, the same is implemented in terms of the time line.
Order Reserved.”

Additional Affidavit dated 02.04.2026 filed by IRP in terms of order dated 13.03.2026 reads thus:-

Page 73 of 79

Page 74 of 79

Page 75 of 79

Page 76 of 79 55. As can be noted in our order dated 06.04.2026, the SRA and IRP both could file their clarification as sought by this Tribunal in terms of its order dated 13.03.2026. In the backdrop of aforementioned factual position, discussion, analysis and findings, the IA-54/2024 filed by the Applicant/IRP for approval of the Resolution Plan is allowed. The Plan submitted by the SRA, certified by the RP by issuing a certificate in prescribed form viz. Form “H”, is approved. 56. As a sequel, we issue the following directions:-
i. The approved Resolution Plan shall become effective from the date of passing of this Order and shall be implemented strictly as per the term of the plan and implementation schedule given in the Plan;
ii. The SRA/CD would be entitled to no other reliefs/concessions/waivers except those are available/permissible to it as per the provisions of Section 31(1) and 32A of IBC, 2016. The SRA is at liberty to approach the relevant authorities who would consider these claims as per the provisions of the relevant law in an expeditious manner; iii. Following steps would be taken in terms of the resolution plan:- SL. NO. STEP TO BE TAKEN TIMELINE FROM DATE OF RECEIPT OF ORDER 1. Constitution of Monitoring Committee Within 5 days 2. Payment to Income Tax Dept Within 30 days 3. Payment of CIRP Cost Within 180 days 4. Payment to Financial Creditors Within 90 days
5. Payment to Operational Creditors (Workmen & Employees) Within 30 days

Page 77 of 79 6. Change in Management of CD including appointment of new directors Within 30 days 7. Payment to UPSIDA a. Rs. 3.52 Crore within 30 days from the date of approval of Plan b. Rs. 2.49 Crore within 120 days from the date of approval of Plan. c. Rs. 2.49 Crore within 210 days from the date of approval of Plan. iv. The order of the moratorium in respect to the corporate debtor passed by this Adjudicating Authority under Section 14 of the IBC, 2016 shall cease to have effect from the date of passing of this Order; v. The SRA shall act in terms of the provisions of Section 31(4) of IBC 2016; vi. The Monitoring Committee shall file progress report regarding implementation of the Plan before this Tribunal, every month; vii. The RP shall forward all the records relating to the conduct of the CIRP and the Resolution Plan to the IBBI for its record and database; viii. The RP shall also forthwith send a copy of this order to the participants and the Resolution Applicant. He would also send a copy of this order to the ROC concerned within 15 days of this order; ix. The RP shall intimate each claimant about the principle or formulae, as the case may be, for payment of debts under the Plan;

Page 78 of 79 x. Any profit/margin beyond 12% of plan value would be shared by the SRA with Secured Creditors including UPSIDA in equal proportion. For such purpose, nominees of the Banks/Secured Creditors/UPSIDA would monitor the project to assess the cost thereof and the profit earned by the SRA. 57. The Court Officer and Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) shall forthwith make available/send a copy of this Order to the CoC and the Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA) for immediate necessary compliance.
58. A copy of this order shall also be sent by the Court Officer and Applicant to the IBBI and RoC for their record.

I.A. No. 412 of 2025: 59. The captioned application was preferred by Uttar Pradesh State Industrial Development Authority (“UPSIDA/Applicant”) with prayer to reject the Resolution Plan and exclusion of UPSIDA property from the CIRP of the Corporate Debtor. 60. The brief fact of the IA is that vide allotment letter dated 26.11.2011, the Applicant herein had leased Group Housing Plot HRA – 12 at Housing Sector Surajpur Site-C (Extension) Phase-II, Gautam Buddh Nagar (“the property”) for construction of multi-storied residential complex by the Corporate Debtor for premium of INR 8,69,14,429. The Applicant is sole land owning authority of the property in question, which was leased to the CD in terms of lease deed dated 07.09.2012 for construction of a Residential Group Housing project. The property was included in the property and project of the CD in Form-G, however, the CD

Page 79 of 79 has no ownership rights on the property and therefore does not fall under the purview of Section 14(1)(d) of the Code. It is settled law that property of a third party cannot be included as an asset of the CD for the purposes of CIRP even if the possession of the said asset is with the CD. The Applicant further submitted that for the claim of INR 16.08 crores being verified, only an amount of INR 26 lacs has been finalised against the Applicant’s claim, which is a mere 1.625% of the claim value.
61. We have noted the facts and perused the record. In terms of order passed in I.A. No. 54 of 2024 and additional affidavit filed giving effect to additional payment of amount of Rs. 8.5 Crores outside the resolution plan, we dispose of the captioned application. However, it is made clear that the SRA would be bound by the terms of the Lease Deed dated 07.09.2012. For the purpose of timeline prescribed for use, the date of this order would be treated as commencement date. For all other purposes, the SRA would be complying with the term of the aforementioned Lease Deed as also all other bylaws applicable to Industrial Township at Housing Sector Surajpur Site-C (Extension) Phase-II.

Sd/-

Sd/- (RAVINDRA CHATURVEDI) (ASHOK KUMAR BHARDWAJ) MEMBER (T)

        MEMBER (J)