10th November, 2025 Approval of Resolution Plan - JSSI Hydraulics Private Limited [IA-17 & 2816/ND/2025 in IB-66/ND/2022] (11.6 MB)
In force — no superseding record on file.
IA-17/ND/2025, IA-2816/ND/2025 in IB-66/ND/2022
State Bank of India vs. Jssi Hydraulics Pvt.Ltd.
Page 1 of 48
IN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNALNEW DELHI
SPECIAL BENCH (COURT – II)
Item No. 206
IB-66/ND/2022
IA-17/ND/2025, IA-2816/ND/2025
IN THE MATTER OF:
State Bank of India
SAMB-II, 11th Floor,
Jawahar Vyapar Bhavan, 1
Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi-110001
… Applicant/
Financial Creditor
Versus
JSSI Hydraulics Pvt.Ltd.
C-1/B, Block-F, Mansarovar Garden
New Delhi-110015 … Respondent/
Corporate Debtor
AND IN THE MATTER IA.-17/ND/2025:
(Section 30(6) of IBC, 2016 R/w Section 31(1) and Regulation 39(4) of the
IBBI (CIRP) Regulations 2016)
Debashish Nanda
Resolution Professional
Jssi Hydraulics Private Limited
Address Flat No Cs-14 C Floor Ansal Plaza
Vaishali Ghaziabad Uttar Pradesh-201010 ... Applicant
AND IN THE MATTER IA.-2816/ND/2025:
(Section 24(3) (a) of IBC, 2016 R/w Section 60(5) and Rule 11 of NCLT Rules,
2016)
M/S Garg And Company Pvt.
... Applicant
AND IN THE MATTER IA.-2816/ND/2025:
(Section 24(3) (a) of IBC, 2016 R/w Section 60(5) and Rule 11 of NCLT Rules,
2016)
M/S Garg And Company Pvt. Ltd
Y-105 Loha Mandi Naraina,
New Delhi 110028 … Applicant
Versus
Page 2 of 48
-
Debashis Nanda, Resolution Professional of M/S Jssi Hydraulics Pvt. Ltd CS-14, C Floor, Ansal Plaza, 1
Vaishali, Ghaziabad, 201010 … Respondent 1 -
State Bank Of India
Stressed Assets Management Group, 11th Floor, Jawahar Vyapar Bhawan, Janpath, New Delhi -110001. … Respondent 2 -
Canara Bank A-27, 1st Floor, Hauz Khas,
New Delhi -110016 … Respondent 3 Order delivered on 10.10.2025 CORAM:
SH. ASHOK KUMAR BHARDWAJ, HON’BLE MEMBER (J)
SHRI RAVINDRA CHATURVEDI, HON’BLE MEMBER (T)
PRESENT:
For the SRA
:
Adv. Abhishek Anand, Adv. Karan Kohli, Adv. Palak
Kalra, Adv. Ridhima Mehrotra, Adv. Vanshika Dhoot
For RP
:
Adv. Sumant Batra, Adv. Sarthak Bhandari, Adv.
Riya K., Adv.
SENT:
For the SRA
:
Adv. Abhishek Anand, Adv. Karan Kohli, Adv. Palak
Kalra, Adv. Ridhima Mehrotra, Adv. Vanshika Dhoot
For RP
:
Adv. Sumant Batra, Adv. Sarthak Bhandari, Adv.
Riya K., Adv. Debashis Nanda
Hearing Through: VC and Physical (Hybrid) Mode
ORAL ORDER IA-17/2025: The present application has been preferred under Section 30(6) of IBC, 2016. Sans irrelevant details, it is noted that earlier, in terms of order dated 29.04.2024, the IA-3577/2023, preferred for approval of the resolution plan was allowed and the plan submitted by the SRA viz. J.M. Hydraulics Pvt. Ltd. was approved. However, subsequently it transpired that performance bank guarantee furnished by the SRA was forged. In the wake, the Resolution Professional preferred IA-3762/2024, for recalling the order passed by this Tribunal, approving the resolution plan (ibid). The IA-3762/2024 was allowed in terms of the order dated 19.12.2024.
Page 3 of 48
- As a ramification of the said order, a controversy could crop up as to whether the CIRP should resume from the date of publication of fresh Form-G or otherwise. Having an understanding of the aforementioned order passed by this Tribunal recalling the order of approval of plan, the CoC decided that it would be proper to call for fresh plans from those bidders who had earlier submitted their resolution plans.
by
this Tribunal recalling the order of approval of plan, the CoC decided that it
would be proper to call for fresh plans from those bidders who had earlier
submitted their resolution plans.
3. In the process, the bidder Sunrise Industries emerged as Successful Resolution
Applicant (SRA). The issue regarding the resumption of process also landed
before Hon’ble NCLAT in Company Appeal (AT) Insolvency No. 619/2025 in
which Hon’ble NCLAT passed order dated 02.05.2025. The relevant excerpt of
the order reads thus:
Page 4 of 48
Page 5 of 48
Page 6 of 48
- Thus, as far as the issue of decision taken by the CoC regarding inviting the resolution plans only from those who had earlier submitted the submitted the same is concerned it is vindicated and stands resolved in terms of the aforementioned order.
- It would not be out of context to note that our order dated 05.06.2025 could take note of such position. The order reads thus:
icated and stands resolved in terms of the
aforementioned order.
5. It would not be out of context to note that our order dated 05.06.2025 could
take note of such position. The order reads thus:
Page 7 of 48
Page 8 of 48
Page 9 of 48
Page 10 of 48
Page 11 of 48
Page 12 of 48
Page 13 of 48
Page 12 of 48
Page 13 of 48
Page 14 of 48
-
It would not be out of context to note that appeal before Hon’ble Supreme Court preferred against the aforementioned order viz. Civil Appeal No. 10253 of 2025 and Civil Appeal No. 9939 of 2025 also came to be dismissed. The order passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court reads thus:
-
Coming to the captioned IA preferred for approval of resolution plan, the Resolution Professional has enumerated the factual details in the application and has also given certificate in prescribed form, certifying that the resolution plan meets the requirement of the provisions of Section 30(2) of IBC, 2016 as
Page 15 of 48
also that of Regulations 37, 38 and 39 of IBBI (CIRP Regulation) 2016. The relevant excerpt of the certificate given by the Resolution Professional has been reproduced in para-37 of the application which reads thus:
Page 16 of 48
on which reads thus:
Page 16 of 48
Page 17 of 48
Page 18 of 48
Page 19 of 48
Page 20 of 48
Page 21 of 48
Page 22 of 48
Page 23 of 48
Page 22 of 48
Page 23 of 48
Page 24 of 48
Page 25 of 48
-
Para-38 of the application indicate the statement regarding distribution made in favor of the various Stakeholders as also CIRP cost. The para reads thus:
Page 26 of 48 Page 27 of 48 -
The implementation schedule has also been given in the same para. The schedule reads thus:
Page 28 of 48
schedule reads thus:
Page 28 of 48
Page 29 of 48
-
Our attention could be drawn to the payment of the security amount for performance of obligation by SRA to implement the plan. The proof of RTGS
has been placed on record as Annexure- A23 of the paper book which reads thus:Page 30 of 48 Page 31 of 48 -
In compliance of our order dated 22.04.2025, the SBI furnished an affidavit dated 07.05.2025, authenticating the deposition of amount of performance security. Para- 2, 3 and 4 of the affidavit reads thus:
“2. THAT, during the hearing on 22.04.2025, the Ld. Counsel for the SRA submitted that the SRA has deposited Rs. 15 Crores through RTGS in the CIRP Account of the Corporate Debtor maintained in the SBI branch at Mansarovar Garden, New Delhi and the SBI was directed to file a Report regarding the said remission of the amount by the SRA.
e CIRP Account of the Corporate Debtor maintained in the SBI branch at Mansarovar Garden, New Delhi and the SBI was directed to file a Report regarding the said remission of the amount by the SRA. Hence, the present affidavit is being filed on behalf of the SBI informing this Ld. NCLT about the said remission along with the relevant documents. 3. THAT, the CIRP Current A/c No. 35068145790 of the JSSI Hydraulics Pvt. Ltd. was maintained at the SBI Branch, Mansarovar Garden, New Delhi, wherein two deposits i.e. Rs. 13 Crores and Rs. 2 Crores (total Rs. 15 Crores) were made through RTGS UTR Nos. YESBR52025031554895519-0098336044307 & HDFCR52025031550075712-0099855044301, respectively, on behalf of the SRA on 15.03.2025. True copy of the A/c Statement of the Current A/c No. 35068145790 of the JSSI Hydraulics Pvt. Ltd. is enclosed herewith as ANNEXURE: A. 4. THAT, the said amount of Rs. 15 Crores, as deposited by the SRA in the CIRP A/c of JSSI Hydraulics Pvt. Ltd., was, thereafter, kept in an interest-bearing Term Deposit (TDR) A/c No. 43922149944 on 18.03.2025 maintained with the SBI Branch at Vaishali, Ghaziabad. True copy of the Term Deposit Receipt of (TDR) A/c No. 43922149944 is enclosed herewith as ANNEXURE: B.”
) A/c No. 43922149944 on 18.03.2025 maintained with the SBI Branch at Vaishali, Ghaziabad. True copy of the Term Deposit Receipt of (TDR) A/c No. 43922149944 is enclosed herewith as ANNEXURE: B.”
Page 32 of 48
- There is a declaration made in the resolution plan that neither the Applicant
nor any of the connected person is suffering from any disqualification under
Section 29A of the Code. Clause 17.7.1 and 17.7.2 of the plan reads thus:
“17.7 DECLARATION UNDER SECTION 29A OF THE CODE 17.7.1 We confirm that the Resolution Applicant or any of its connected persons are not disqualified under Section29A of the Code and is eligible to submit the Resolution Plan. 17.7.2 A separate declaration under Section 29A of the code has already been submitted to the Resolution Professional and is also enclosed with the resolution plan.” - Our attention is also drawn to Clause 16(5) of the plan to indicate that
irrespective of granting any relief or concession by this Tribunal to SRA, the
SRA would not withdraw the Resolution Plan. The relevant excerpt of the plan
reads thus:
“v. Other terms acceptable to the Resolution Applicant
lief or concession by this Tribunal to SRA, the
SRA would not withdraw the Resolution Plan. The relevant excerpt of the plan
reads thus:
“v. Other terms acceptable to the Resolution Applicant
- That in case the resolution plan is approved by the COC members the same is filed with the Hon'ble NCLT for its approval and there is delay on the part of Hon'ble NCLT or any other judicial authority in approving the plan, the resolution applicant would not withdraw the plan on the ground of delay of the approval.
- All the wavier that has been mentioned in the resolution plan, the same would be subject to the approval of the Hon'ble NCLT. In case the Adjudicating Authority does not approve any waivers sought by the Resolution Applicant, this event would not be used as reason to withdraw the Resolution Plan.”
- In the resolution plan, the SRA has also disclosed the reason of insolvency.
Clause 5.1 of the plan reads thus:
“5.1 REASON OF INSOLVENCY
be used
as reason to withdraw the Resolution Plan.”
14. In the resolution plan, the SRA has also disclosed the reason of insolvency.
Clause 5.1 of the plan reads thus:
“5.1 REASON OF INSOLVENCY
Page 33 of 48
The actual reason for insolvency of the JSSIHPL is not known but
review of IM, financial position, statement of affairs and other
available documents of JSSIHPL by the Resolution Applicant point
to following key reasons for the present situation of the JSSIHPL:
a. Financial issues.
b. Management issues
c. Un-favorable Economic Scenario
d.
Increase
in
Operational
and
financial
cost
without
corresponding increase in revenue.
e. Mounting of financial and operational debt due to continued
losses”
15. The SRA has also stated that how the plan given by it would be feasible.
Relevant excerpt of the plan reads thus:-
“7. BUSINESS PLAN/FINANCIAL PROJECTION
7.1 BUSINESS PLAN
The Resolution Applicant and its partners are already into multi
businesses including construction, Fabrication/wielding, real estate,
renting and leasing etc. for more than 25 years mainly in the
Delhi/NCR area which is also the area wherein the Unit of the CD
situated. The land & building owned by the Corporate Debtor is
situated in Bahadurgarh, Haryana.
r more than 25 years mainly in the Delhi/NCR area which is also the area wherein the Unit of the CD situated. The land & building owned by the Corporate Debtor is situated in Bahadurgarh, Haryana. Keeping above options, Resolution applicant will have the option of giving 70% land & building on rent and remaining will be used for job work and manufacturing. The business plans includes: Additional capital and working capital investment in the existing infrastructure of the CD to ensure smooth running and management of the CD on day to day basis. It will include improvement in the quality of goods/services.
Page 34 of 48
Effective use of immovable assets to make business more viable and feasible. The detailed business projections are enclosed with plan as Annexure. 7.2 PROPOSED TURNAROUND PLAN & FINANCIAL PROJECTIONS Resolution Applicant propose to invest substantial interest free or nominal interest fund in the CD and has planned other measures to optimize the cost. With its expertise, RA will commence the business operations and will develop opportunity for other services in the premises to generate additional revenue. With Additional capital investment and improved quality of goods and services, more effective use of assets, RA shall be able to further maximize its operational profit. However financial projections are taken on conservative basis.
nd improved quality of goods and services, more effective use of assets, RA shall be able to further maximize its operational profit. However financial projections are taken on conservative basis. The planned strategy will help in achieving turnaround of the CD.” 16. Just to espouse its capability to implement the plan, the SRA has indicated the source of fund in Clause-11 (a) & (b) of the plan which reads thus:
Page 35 of 48
Page 36 of 48
-
Mr. Abhishek Anand, Ld. Counsel for SRA sought to make reference to page- 126 of the paper book/application to buttress that SRA has sufficient funds for the implementation of the plan, which establish that the SRA would have no difficulty in implementing the resolution plan. The relevant excerpt of the letter reads thus:-
-
As can be seen from the certificate given by the Resolution Professional in prescribed form viz. Form-H, the fair value of the assets of the Corporate Debtor is Rs. 67,77,21,565.50/- and liquidation value thereof is Rs.52,53,53,549.63/-, while the value of the plan is Rs. 53, 29, 83,000/- plus the entire provident fund dues plus regulatory fee at the rate of 0.25%.
21,565.50/- and liquidation value thereof is Rs.52,53,53,549.63/-, while the value of the plan is Rs. 53, 29, 83,000/- plus the entire provident fund dues plus regulatory fee at the rate of 0.25%. The relevant excerpt of the resolution plan indicating the fair value and liquidation value of the assets of the Corporate Debtor reads thus:
Page 37 of 48
Page 38 of 48
-
The plan value has been mentioned in the addendum dated 25.02.2025, placed on record as Annexure to the application preferred under Section 30(6) of IBC,
-
The relevant excerpt of the addendum reads thus:
Page 39 of 48 Page 40 of 48
Page 39 of 48
Page 40 of 48
Page 41 of 48
-
The Resolution Professional has also placed on record the undertaking given by the SRA regarding payment of PF dues. The undertaking dated 03.02.2025 reads thus:
-
The statement regarding the amount payable to various stakeholders has been certified by the Resolution Professional in terms of the certificate given in Form- H. Clause 7(b) of the certificate given in revised Form-H reads thus:-
Page 42 of 48 Page 43 of 48
Page 42 of 48
Page 43 of 48
Page 44 of 48
- Apparently the secured Financial Creditors are offered 25.12% of the admitted amount, the government dues are offered only to the extent of 14.93% and even the dues of HSIIDC are offered to the extent of 25.12% of the admitted claim. Indubitably the haircut is very high.
- Nevertheless, 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
atish 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
Page 45 of 48
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 undefined stage, be uncertain, including after approval by the Adjudicating Authority.
tly unviable, since open- ended clauses on modifications/withdrawal would mean that the Plan could fail at an 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
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
Page 46 of 48
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.”
24. In
the
wake
of
the
aforementioned,
the
provision
regarding
distribution/payment against the claim by different Stakeholders though being
very less amount can be no ground for not to approve the resolution plan.
25. Mr. Shekhar Raj, Ld. Counsel for HSIDC (Haryana State Industrial
Development Corporation) raised an issue regarding the amount provided by
the SRA. Apparently the amount is 25.12% of the claim amount (Rs. 6, 02, 28,
168). Nevertheless, there is a declaration in the addendum resolution plan viz
HSIDC would be paid by the SRA the additional amount, subject to outcome
of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 8445/2024. The relevant excerpt
of the addendum has already been reproduced hereinabove.
26. Mr.
y the SRA the additional amount, subject to outcome
of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 8445/2024. The relevant excerpt
of the addendum has already been reproduced hereinabove.
26. Mr. Sumant Batra, Ld. Counsel for the Resolution Professional submitted that
no PUFE application is pending in the matter.
IA-2816/2025:
-
As far as IA- 2816/2025 is concerned, the salient details therein is that the Operation Creditors were given no opportunity to remain present in the meetings of the CoC.
-
Mr. Batra, Ld. Counsel for Resolution Professional pointed out that in terms of the provisions of Section 24(3)(c) of IBC, 2016, the Operation Creditor or their representatives may participate in CoC proceedings if the aggregate due payable to them is not less than 10% of the debt. He further submitted that the
Page 47 of 48
representative of the HSIDC whose aggregate dues were more than 10%
remained present in meetings of CoC, thus the plea raised in the application is
incorrect. In the wake of the plea raised by Mr. Batra, Ld. Counsel for Resolution
Professional as also in terms of the provisions of proviso to Section 24(4) of the
Code, the absence of representative of Operation Creditor shall not vitiate the
meeting of CoC, thus we do not find any merit in IA- 2816/2025 and the same
is accordingly rejected.
3.
(4) of the
Code, the absence of representative of Operation Creditor shall not vitiate the
meeting of CoC, thus we do not find any merit in IA- 2816/2025 and the same
is accordingly rejected.
3. In the wake of the aforementioned, we approve the resolution plan and direct:
i.
Constitution of Monitoring Committee will take place forthwith;
ii.
All the Creditors, existing Shareholders and other Stakeholders qua
the Corporate Debtor would be intimated about the constitution of
Monitoring Committee within 15 days from today;
iii.
The intimation to SEBI will also be given within given time i.e. 15
days from today;
iv.
All existing equity of the company will be cancelled within 30 days
from today;
v.
The Board of Directors qua the Corporate Debtor will be informed
within 30 days;
vi.
The appointment of professionally qualified key managerial
employees qua the Corporate Debtor will also take place within 30
days;
vii.
The fresh share capital will be issued within 30 days;
viii.
The infusion of funds by way of equity and debt for making the
payment as proposed in the resolution plan will take place within
120 days from today;
ix.
The infusion of funds by way of debt for making the payment as
proposed in the resolution plan for payment to Operational Creditor
will take place within 170 days;
hin 120 days from today; ix. The infusion of funds by way of debt for making the payment as proposed in the resolution plan for payment to Operational Creditor will take place within 170 days;
Page 48 of 48
- It would be for the SRA to ensure that the compliance of Section 31(3)(b) of IBC, 2016, is done within one year from today.
- The SRA would be bound by the provision of the plan viz. subject to outcome of the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court in aforementioned appeal, the 50% of the enhanced amount of compensation or Rs.6.00 Crore, whichever is higher, would be payable by the SRA.
- The Resolution Professional is directed to comply with the provisions of Regulation 39 (5) to (6) and 39A of IBBI (CIRP Regulation) 2016 preferably within 10 days from the date of uploading of this order.
- No relief and concession is granted to SRA. Nevertheless, it goes without saying that whatever reliefs and concessions are available to SRA in terms of the provisions of Section 31(1) and 32A of IBC, 2016 and also in terms of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ghanashyam Mishra and Sons Pvt. Ltd. v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. and Ors., (2021) ibclaw.in 54 SC would be available to SRA/CD.
- The SRA will also be entitled avail the benefit of Section 32A of IBC, 2016. Ld. Counsel for SRA stand by undertaking given by SRA on 03.02.2025 viz.
claw.in 54 SC would be available to SRA/CD.
8. The SRA will also be entitled avail the benefit of Section 32A of IBC, 2016. Ld.
Counsel for SRA stand by undertaking given by SRA on 03.02.2025 viz. the SRA
will not assert any claim on performance security amounting to Rs.1.5 Crores
deposited with the Resolution Professional by previous SRA. In the wake, it is
made clear that the amount will be distributed amongst all the Secured Creditors
in terms of the provisions of Section 53(1) of IBC, 2016.
Sd/-
Sd/-
(RAVINDRA CHATURVEDI) (ASHOK KUMAR BHARDWAJ) MEMBER (T)
MEMBER (J)
Verbatim extracted text (OCR/PDF). Older scans and tables may show extraction artifacts — verify against the original for anything you act on.
No analysis generated for this document yet (analysis runs over brief docs + on-demand). Run build_analysis.py --ids 26414 --apply.