Bank of India and Ors. Vs. S.M. Kamal Pasha and Ors. - Read together, we are of the opinion that the withdrawal of an application can only be till the CoC approves the plan and after it is placed before the Adjudicating Authority, there can be no withdrawal either of the application or the approved Resolution Plan.

  SCI (2026.10.26) in Bank of India and Ors. Vs. S.M. Kamal Pasha and Ors.  [(2026) ibclaw.in 764 SC, Civil Appeal No. 12045 of 2026] held that; 

• The resolution plan even prior to the approval of the adjudicating authority is binding inter se the CoC and the successful resolution applicant. The resolution plan cannot be construed purely as a “contract” governed by the Contract Act, in the period intervening its acceptance by the CoC and the approval of the adjudicating authority. Even at that stage, its binding effects are produced by IBC framework.

• The binding effect of the resolution plan has the consequence of preventing the CoC or the resolution applicant to renege from its terms after the plan has been approved by the CoC through a voting mechanism.

• It was also noticed in paragraph 223 that, ‘the existing insolvency framework in India provides no scope for effecting further modifications or withdrawals of CoC-approved resolution plans, at the behest of the successful resolution applicant’ (sic) nor does it provide such a framework at the behest of the CoC.

• Read together, we are of the opinion that the withdrawal of an application can only be till the CoC approves the plan and after it is placed before the Adjudicating Authority, there can be no withdrawal either of the application or the approved Resolution Plan.

• Hence the binding nature of the Resolution Plan was upheld even in Kalyani Transco and the finding that the CoC continues to exist till the Resolution Plan is implemented, does not detract from the essential binding nature of a Resolution Plan, approved by the CoC.

• The consideration has to be with a satisfaction entered of the Resolution Plan meeting the requirements of Section 30(2), as is mandated by Section 31(1) which shall be after verifying the financial position of the CD, as of now, together with the cash balance juxtaposed with the terms of the resolution plan. The improved profitability alone cannot be a reason to refuse approval if the Resolution Plan meets the requirements under sub-section (2) of Section 30

• We make it clear that except on the binding nature of the Resolution Plan, vis-a-vis the CoC and the SRA, as already upheld by this Court, we have only made prima facie observations which need not govern the final adjudication by the NCLT.

Excerpts of the order;

Whether the Committee of Creditors (CoC), after approving the Resolution Plan by a majority, as provided under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), can seek withdrawal of the same before the Adjudicating Authority (AA), the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT); on grounds of delay, not attributable to the Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA) but on the plea that the financial position of the Corporate Debtor (CD) has improved considerably, is the vexing question posed.

# 2. The NCLT allowed the withdrawal filed by the Resolution Professional (RP), on it being approved by the CoC unanimously. The plea taken by the CoC before the NCLT was that the CD’s financial position having improved in the ensuing years, when the RP was in management, the SRA would have a windfall gain in having to bring in a lot less than that stipulated in the Resolution Plan. The erstwhile promoters of the CD, their holding company, also support the withdrawal of the Resolution Plan; but on different grounds with a different consequence. They seek that the CIRP process itself be abandoned since they are willing to offer a One-Time Settlement (OTS) to the creditors. The members of the CoC along with the RP seeks for issuance of a fresh Form-G; a new invitation of Expression of Interest (EoI). The SRA opposes both prayers referring to the binding nature of the Resolution Plan, insofar as the CoC and the SRA are concerned.

# 3. The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) found the withdrawal application to be in violation of the provisions of the IBC, especially referring to Ebix Singapore (P) Ltd. v. Committee of Creditors of Educomp Solutions Ltd. and Another [(2022) 2 SCC 401] and State Bank of India and Others v. Consortium of Murari Lal Jalan and Florian Fritsch and Another [(2025) 4 SCC 354]. The NCLAT held that the CoC has no jurisdiction to decide on withdrawal of the Resolution Plan. It was found that the earlier proceedings before this Court; the stay granted in which, occasioned the delay in implementation of the plan, permitted the appellant therein, the erstwhile promoter, the holding company to make all such pleas before the Adjudicating Authority. The NCLAT while rejecting the application filed by the RP on behalf of the CoC to withdraw the approval to the Resolution Plan, revived the application filed by the RP for confirmation of the Resolution Plan; IA No.1505 of 2021 for consideration by the NCLT. IA No.1679 of 2025 filed by the holding company, the 4th respondent herein was also directed to be considered. The SRA too was permitted to raise their contentions.

# 4. The appeal is filed by the members of the CoC, six in number of which the 1st appellant is the applicant under Section 7 of the IBC; the financial creditor, who initiated the CIRP against the CD. The 1st and 2nd respondents together, as a consortium had submitted the Resolution Plan, which was approved by the CoC, the consortium referred to herein as the SRA. The 3rd respondent is the RP, and the 4th respondent is the holding company of the CD.

# 5. The appellants are represented by Mr.Gopal Sankarnarayan, learned Senior Counsel who points out that the original proposal in the Resolution Plan was of a resolution amount of Rs.172.55 crores, when the CD had an opening balance of Rs.30 crores. However, by the time this Court in the earlier proceedings dismissed the SLP filed by the erstwhile promoter, the opening balance has risen up to Rs.165 crores; which confers a windfall gain on the SRA. Since the fresh infusion of funds by the SRA would be considerably reduced, according to him, this would violate the governing principles of CIRP, under the IBC, which is the maximization of value of the assets of the CD inter alia inuring to the benefit of the creditors. Here, the creditors would be benefited if the Resolution Plan is withdrawn, since they would also be entitled to much more than that offered in the haircut by the Resolution Plan. At the time of submission of the Resolution Plan and its approval by the CoC, the CD’s financial position was tottering since its business of toll collection in the National Highway 45 had taken a beating due to the Covid-19 pandemic. It is trite that the commercial wisdom of the CoC is given primacy under the IBC and this is a fit case where the Resolution Plan should be withdrawn. Reliance is also placed on Kalyani Transco v. Bhushan Power & Steel Ltd. [(2026) 6 SCC 431] to canvass the proposition that the CoC’s existence does not end with the approval of the plan and survives throughout the implementation, till the disbursals as per the plans are fructified.

# 6. Mr. Nidhesh Gupta, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the SRA, on the other hand, heavily relied on the judgment in Ebix Singapore (P) Ltd. to contend that the CoC is bound by the approval granted of the Resolution Plan and neither can the SRA wriggle out of its obligation, for reason of the CD’s financial position having further deteriorated nor can the CoC withdraw from its commitment to abide by an approved Resolution Plan, for reason of the financial position of the CD having improved. It is pointed out that the improvement in the financial position was already contemplated in the Resolution Plan, and in any event, if the SRA was handed over the CD, within the timelines provided under the IBC, the revenue generated would have gone into the coffers of the SRA without any additional benefit being conferred on the members of the CoC. The CoC’s request would go against the basic principles enshrined in IBC and any permission granted for withdrawal of the approved Resolution Plan, at the behest of the CoC would result in shifting stances by the financial creditors only looking at a better settlement; which cannot necessarily be said to be an expression of commercial wisdom.

# 7. Mr. Nikhhil Nayyar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 4th respondent, the holding company and the sole promoter of the CD points out that if the sanctioned OTS, as affirmed by the CoC is implemented, then everybody would gain and, in that circumstance, the CIRP itself can be closed and the CD on its revival would remain a profitable cash surplus going concern. In fact, the submission is that the Company’s present financial position not only supports its exit from the CIRP but there is also a feasible alternative of discharging the admitted creditors’ balance in full, in addition to the OTS. This Court, in the earlier round had specifically directed consideration of the holding company’s request, which is now before the NCLT by IA No.1679 of 2025.

# 8. Ebix Singapore (P) Ltd.  considered the request of three SRAs in three different CIRPs. The appeal by Ebix dealt with the withdrawal sought for by the SRA on the ground of investigation initiated against the misconduct in the affairs of Educomp, the CD, prior to the commencement of the CIRP. It was found that the SRA would be immune from any prosecution or punishment and the contention that it is placed in a prejudicial position due to the investigation into the affairs of the CD by CBI and the SFIO, was merely a red herring. Insofar as the Seroco’s appeal is concerned, the contention of frustration of contract due to the economic slowdown, impacting the value of assets, was rejected on the ground of common law remedies not being available to render the Resolution Plan voidable on account of frustration, force majeure, or other such instances. However, in the Kundan Care’s appeal since both the Resolution Applicant and the CoC together requested for modification of the Resolution Plan because of the uncertainty over the Power Purchase Agreement (PPA), cleared by the decision of this Court, a one-time relief under Article 142 of the Constitution was provided. The SRA, in this case specifically argues against the invocation of Article 142 on the facts of this case.

# 9. Ebix Singapore (P) Ltd. considered three stages, on an overview of the CIRP procedures; the first, prior to and ending with the approval of the Resolution Plan by the CoC; the second, the interim period between the approval of the CoC and the confirmation by the Adjudicating Authority; and the third, after the Adjudicating Authority approves the Resolution Plan. Therein the period which came up for consideration was the second stage as is the situation in the present case, i.e. between the approval of the CoC and confirmation by the NCLT. Elaborately considering the source of the binding nature of the Resolution Plan; whether it be the IBC or the law of contracts, it was held as under: -

• 113…… In the pure contractual realm, an agreement binds parties who are privy to the contract. In the context of a resolution plan governed by IBC, the element of privity becomes inapplicable once the adjudicating authority confirms the resolution plan under Section 31(1) and declares it to be binding on all stakeholders, who are not a part of the negotiation stage or parties to the resolution plan. In fact, a commentator has noted that the purpose of Bankruptcy law is to actually solve a specific “contracting failure” that accompanies financial distress…… It was also held that: -

• 115….…….the resolution plan even prior to the approval of the adjudicating authority is binding inter se the CoC and the successful resolution applicant. The resolution plan cannot be construed purely as a “contract” governed by the Contract Act, in the period intervening its acceptance by the CoC and the approval of the adjudicating authority. Even at that stage, its binding effects are produced by IBC framework.

# 10. It was categorically held, ‘that ability of the Resolution Plan to bind those who have not consented to it, by way of a statutory procedure, indicates that it is not a typical contract’. Dilating upon Section 30(4) which requires only 66% vote for an approval of the Resolution Plan, it was noticed that even the dissenting creditors are bound by the Resolution Plan, by virtue of the statutory provisions. It was held that:

• 112….…. Other elements governing the resolution plan indicate that the entire process from initiation and leading up to its acceptance by the CoC takes place within the framework of IBC. In addition, IBC provides penalties for non-compliance with the resolution plan after its approval under Section 31 and forfeiture of the PBG for failing to implement the resolution plan or contributing to the failure of its implementation. The violation of the terms of the resolution plan does not give rise to a claim of damages, rather it leads to prosecution and imposition of punishment under Section 74 IBC. On the contrary, a CoC's withdrawal of the CIRP under Section 12-A is coupled with a requirement of payment of CIRP costs, but no damages are statutorily payable to the  resolution applicant, irrespective of the stage of the withdrawal.

It was categorically held that: -

• 116….….The binding effect of the resolution plan has the consequence of preventing the CoC or the resolution applicant to renege from its terms after the plan has been approved by the CoC through a voting mechanism……

# 11. Reference was also made to Section 12A and Regulation 30A and it was held so: -

• 131… ….. Further, in the event that the CoC enters into a settlement with the corporate debtor and withdraws from the CIRP under Section 12-A, Regulation 30-A provides for only payment of insolvency costs and not compensation or damages to the resolution applicant for investing time and money in the process. The parties may resort to invoking principles of frustration or force majeure to evade implementation of the resolution plan leading to unnecessary litigation. This Court in Amtek Auto [Amtek Auto Ltd. (CoC) v. Dinkar T. Venkatasubramanian (2021 )4 SCC 457, had curbed a similar attempt by a successful resolution applicant who had relied on a force majeure clause in its resolution plan to seek a direction compelling the CoC to negotiate a modification to its resolution plan. The Court held that there was no scope for negotiations between the parties once the resolution plan has been approved by the CoC.

# 12. It is apposite also to refer to paragraph 156.2 which is extracted herein: -

• 156.2. In Uttara Foods [Uttara Foods & Feeds (P) Ltd. v. Mona Pharmachem (2018) 15 SCC 587, this Court had granted a one-time relief under Article 142 of the Constitution since all the parties were present before it and had presented it with signed consent terms. This course of action, in refraining from the exercise of inherent powers to effect procedures and remedies that were not specifically envisaged by the statute, was explicitly affirmed by the Insolvency Law Committee Report dated March 2018 [ Pages 5 and 101, Report of the Insolvency Law Committee, Ministry of Corporate Affairs (March 2018) available at <https://ibbi.gov.in/uploads/resources/ILRReport2603_0304 2018.pdf> last accessed 20-8-2021.] which proceeded to suggest amendments to IBC and recommended a ninety per cent voting threshold by the CoC for withdrawals of a CIRP and a specific amendment to Rule 8 of the then existing CIRP Rules to enable parties to file such applications. This report led to the insertion of Section 12-A which vested the CoC with the power to withdraw the CIRP or vote on such withdrawal, if sought by the corporate debtor. This provision was introduced with retrospective effect on 6-6-2018. Significantly, no such exit routes have been contemplated for the resolution applicant. It is relevant to note that the newly inserted and then unamended Regulation 30-A (w.e.f. 4-7- 2018) of the CIRP Regulations stipulated that withdrawal under Section 12-A can be allowed through submitting an application to the IRP or RP (as the case may be) before the invitation for EoI is issued to the public. The CoC was to consider the application within seven days of its constitution and an approval for such application required approval of the ninety per cent of the voting share of the CoC.

# 13. As has been reiterated in Ebix Singapore (P). Ltd. based on the binding precedents of this Court, the Adjudicating Authority, the NCLT, cannot second guess the commercial wisdom of the parties or direct unilateral modification to the Resolution Plan. When there is no clear legal provision, by a process of interpretation, no power can be conferred on the Adjudicating Authority to direct an unwilling CoC to renegotiate a submitted Resolution Plan or agree to its withdrawal at the behest of the Resolution Applicant. The direction to re-consider has to be only to ensure compliance under Section 30(2) IBC, before exercising its powers of approval or rejection under Section 31 was the categoric finding.

# 14. We have to observe that Ebix Singapore (P) Ltd. though was in the specific context of withdrawal/modification sought of the approved Resolution Plan, by the SRA, which approval was placed before the Adjudicating Authority for confirmation, the dictum applies squarely to the CoC too. It was also noticed in paragraph 223 that, ‘the existing insolvency framework in India provides no scope for effecting further modifications or withdrawals of CoC-approved resolution plans, at the behest of the successful resolution applicant’ (sic) nor does it provide such a framework at the behest of the CoC.

3 15. Section 12-A introduced with retrospective effect, on the face of it, read alone, gives a carte blanche to the applicant, with approval of 90% voting share of the CoC to seek withdrawal of an application. Regulation 30-A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 incorporated simultaneous to Section 12A, seemingly restricts the power to withdraw, permitting it only; before the constitution of the CoC, through the IRP or, after the constitution of the CoC, thorough the IRP or the RP, as the case may be. The proviso also makes it abundantly clear that if an application is made under Clause (b) after the issue of invitation for EoI under Regulation 36A, the applicant shall state the reasons justifying withdrawal after issuance of such invitation. Inferentially cannot be deemed to be a curtailment of the power under Section 12-A, which in any case is not within the domain of the rule making authority.

# 16. Glas Trust Company LLC v. Byju Raveendran & Others [(2024) SCC Online 3032], held that, with the introduction of Section 12-A and Regulation 30- A an exhaustive procedure is laid down for withdrawal of applications under Sections 7/9/10 which could be sought for at four stages; 

• (i) before admission of the application, where the applicant could directly approach the AA, then, 

• (ii) after admission and before the CoC is constituted, when the application to withdraw has to be filed through the IRP and again,

• (iii) after the CoC is constituted and before the EoI is received, through the IRP or the RP and finally, 

• (iv) after the EoI is received, with the same procedure as at the third instance, however with sufficient reasons for having moved at that belated stage. But the question still remains as to whether the remedy would remain alive after the CoC approves the resolution plan.

# 17. The legislative scheme does not permit Section 12-A to be read in isolation. Section 31 with the nominal heading, ‘Approval of Resolution Plan’ postulates the satisfaction of the Adjudicating Authority, as to the Resolution Plan approved by the CoC under Section 30(4), meeting the requirements of sub-section (2) of Section 30. Sub-section (2) of Section 30 ensures that the IRP cost is paid in priority to the other debts of the CD in the manner specified by the Board and more importantly, that the creditors of the CD obtain the higher of the amounts, as indicated in sub- clauses (i) and (ii). That is; either the amount to be paid under Section 53 to the creditors in the event of liquidation or the amount specified for distribution under the Resolution Plan in accordance with the order of priority in sub-section (1) of Section 53; whichever is higher. Read together, we are of the opinion that the withdrawal of an application can only be till the CoC approves the plan and after it is placed before the Adjudicating Authority, there can be no withdrawal either of the application or the approved Resolution Plan.

# 18. We cannot also but notice Explanation I to Section 30 (2), which clearly requires that there should be a fair and equitable distribution to the creditors in accordance with the provisions of this clause which also is a question to be considered while the confirmation of an approved plan is taken up and decided by the Adjudicating Authority, the NCLT. We would further buttress this position with a reference to Explanation II to Section 30 which stipulates that the provisions of sub-section (2) brought in by the IBC (Amendment) Act, 2019 apply to every Resolution Plan which has not been approved or rejected by the Adjudicating Authority; which is the situation in the above case.

# 19. In this context we also extract paragraph 224 of Ebix Singapore (P) Ltd.1 which reckoned the possibility of long delays:-

• 224. It would also be sobering for us to recognize that whilst this Court has declared the position in law to not enable a withdrawal or modification to a successful Resolution Applicant after its submission to the Adjudicating Authority, long delays in approving the resolution plan by the adjudicating authority affect the subsequent implementation of the plan. These delays, if systemic and frequent, will have an undeniable impact on the commercial assessment that the parties undertake during the course of the negotiation…...

# 20. Referring to the despondent state of affairs, as revealed from a Report of the Standing Committee on Finance (2020-21) of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, regarding delay in implementation, it was observed: -

• The delays were attributable to: (i) the NCLT taking considerable time in admitting CIRPs; (ii) late and unsolicited bids by Resolution Applicants after the original bidder becomes public upon passage of the deadline for submission of the Plan; and (iii) multiplicity of litigation and the appellate process to the NCLAT and the Supreme Court.

Here the delay was occasioned because of the stay granted by this Court.

# 21. Kalyani Transco accepted the proposition that CoC has a vital interest in the Resolution Plan, and such an interest would continue till the Resolution Plan is actually implemented, since only on its implementation payments can be made to the creditors in accordance with the Resolution Plan. There, one of the questions raised was the delay in implementation of the Resolution Plan, as permitted by the CoC, challenged by the promoter as beyond the ken of the CoC, especially since it had become functus officio on the plan having been approved by the AA. This Court specifically noticed Regulation 18 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) (CIRP) Regulations which by sub-regulation (2) enable the RP to convene a meeting if he considers it necessary on a request received from the Members of the Committee representing at least 33% of the voting rights. While the explanation clarifies that such meetings may be convened under the sub-regulation till the Resolution Plan is approved under sub-section (1) of Section 31 or order on liquidation is passed under Section 33, it also provides a rider that the decision in such meeting shall not affect the Resolution Plan submitted before the AA. This was specifically referred, to find that on approval of the Resolution Plan, the CoC does not become functus officio, and it is empowered to decide all matters, except matters which affect the Resolution Plan submitted before the AA (sic-para 109). It was also held that the CoC has a vital interest in the Resolution Plan which interest would continue till the Resolution Plan stands actually implemented (sic-para 110).

# 22. In fact, in Kalyani Transco, the Resolution Plan was approved by the CoC on 15.10.2018 and the RP submitted it for approval to the AA on 14.02.2019. However, there were several impediments in the implementation of the Resolution Plan by the SRA, which included investigation against the erstwhile promoters, attachments of the properties of the CD and so on and so forth. Despite all these on 17.02.2020, the NCLAT approved the Resolution Plan of the SRA by modifying/clarifying some of the conditions imposed by the NCLT and later the CoC by a resolution passed on 26.02.2021 by a majority of 97.25% voters provided that the SRA shall implement the Resolution Plan on or before 31.03.2021 and the SRA implemented the Resolution Plan by paying the amounts due to the financial creditors of the CD. This Court also found that the Resolution Plan by Clause 3.1 provided for an effective date, which shall not exceed 30 days from NCLT approval date or such extended period, which may be permitted by 66% majority of the lenders forming part of the CoC. It was held that Clause 3 of the Resolution Plan neither provided modification or withdrawal from the Resolution Plan and it was not an open-ended or indeterminate plan, solely at the discretion of the resolution applicant. There was neither a provision for withdrawal or modification of the Resolution Plan nor was any negotiation emphasized under the said clause. Hence the binding nature of the Resolution Plan was upheld even in Kalyani Transco and the finding that the CoC continues to exist till the Resolution Plan is implemented, does not detract from the essential binding nature of a Resolution Plan, approved by the CoC.

# 23. As of now, two applications are pending before the NCLT, one for the approval of the Resolution Plan and the other filed by the holding company for implementation of an OTS, thus, bringing to an end the very CIRP. As has been held in Ebix Singapore (P) Ltd.1 in considering the said applications, the NCLT would necessarily have to keep in mind that even under Section 12A, if the CoC by a 90% majority consents to withdrawal of the plan, the consequence is only the payment of CIRP costs by the CoC. However, the consequences of SRA not implementing an approved plan would be onerous insofar as forfeiture of PBG and prosecution under Section 74 of the IBC. In the present case, the PBG has been furnished by the SRA long back and the same is being continued with considerable expenses which would not be defrayed by the provisions of the IBC if no approval is granted to the Resolution Plan.

# 24. The compelling contention raised by the appellants is that the authoritative pronouncements of the NCLT, being disabled from second guessing the commercial wisdom of the CoC in approving a plan with 66% majority, squarely applies in the present instance where the CoC unanimously is in favour of a fresh Form-G being issued. The ground of feasibility of revival by itself and the possibility of defeating the very principle of maximisation of assets of the CD, which is the bedrock of IBC, requires a consideration by the NCLT. Insofar as the commercial wisdom, we should also reckon the contention of the SRA that the financial turnabout for the good, was contemplated even in the Resolution Plan and if the SRA was handed over the CD, the future generation of income from the operations of the CD, would have inured to the benefit of the SRA. The SRA’s contention that the CoC has turned turtle not because of its commercial wisdom but only due to a shortsighted opportunism revealing institutionalized rapacity also cannot be ignored.

# 25. We would not interfere with the impugned order which though found the CoC to have no jurisdiction to withdraw from its approval, but all the same directed every contention raised by the SRA and the CD’s holding company to be considered by the Adjudicating Authority, while deciding the application filed for confirmation of the approval of the CoC and the application filed by the holding company for putting an end to the CIRP itself. The consideration has to be with a satisfaction entered of the Resolution Plan meeting the requirements of Section 30(2), as is mandated by Section 31(1) which shall be after verifying the financial position of the CD, as of now, together with the cash balance juxtaposed with the terms of the resolution plan. The improved profitability alone cannot be a reason to refuse approval if the Resolution Plan meets the requirements under sub-section (2) of Section 30 We make it clear that except on the binding nature of the Resolution Plan, vis-a-vis the CoC and the SRA, as already upheld by this Court, we have only made prima facie observations which need not govern the final adjudication by the NCLT.

# 26. We hence request the applications directed to be considered by the NCLT to be taken up together and a decision rendered as expeditiously as possible, reckoning the delay already occasioned.

# 27. The appeal stands disposed of.

# 28. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand rejected.

--------------------------------------------------

Deepak Modi vs. Shalfeyo Industries Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. - We are of the view that, the company is a viable entity and keeping the CIRP alive merely because the earlier statutory withdrawal mechanism could not be completed, would be huge wastage of precious resources in terms of time of Tribunals which could be productively used to dispose other important proceedings.

 NCLAT (2026.09.07) in Deepak Modi vs. Shalfeyo Industries Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. [(2026) ibclaw.in 1032 NCLAT,  Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 222 of 2025] held that;

• In these proceedings, we note that the claims of all the creditors have now been settled. The CIRP Cost is to be determined by the Adjudicating Authority and the Appellant has agreed to pay the amount, which would be determined by the Adjudicating Authority.

• However, the CIRP Process has effectively reached a procedural stalemate, as the Form FA cannot be filed in the present situation due to peculiar situation prevailing, wherein the CIRP Cost is not crystallised and there is a dispute regarding the same between the Appellant and RP, which is pending with Adjudicating Authority.

• We are of the view that, the company is a viable entity and keeping the CIRP alive merely because the earlier statutory withdrawal mechanism could not be completed, would be huge wastage of precious resources in terms of time of Tribunals which could be productively used to dispose other important proceedings.

• we are of the view that in the peculiar circumstances of the present case, continuation of the CIRP would serve no meaningful purpose and would only result in further wastage of precious resources.

Excerpts of the Order; 

The present Appeal CA AT (Ins.) No. 222 of 205, has been preferred by Mr. Deepak Modi, Suspended Director of Shalfeyo Industries Private Limited (“Corporate Debtor”), against the impugned order dated 18.12.2024 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Jaipur Bench (‘Adjudicating Authority’) in IA (IBC) No. 549/JPR/2024 in CP (IB) No. 79/9/JPR/2020, whereby the application filed by the Appellant under Section 12A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“hereinafter referred to as ‘Code’) read with Regulation 30A of the CIRP Regulations seeking withdrawal of the CIRP of the Corporate Debtor was dismissed. The CIRP was initiated at the instance of Prime Impex (Operational Creditor)/Respondent No.3 on 16.08.2022, and Mr. Umang Jain appointed as the Resolution Professional. Axis Bank Limited, the financial creditor is the Respondent No.2 in these proceedings.

FACTS OF THE CASE

# 2. The brief facts of the case relevant for the instant appeal are given below:

i.) Prime Impex, the Operational Creditor, initiated the insolvency proceedings under Section 9 of the Code against Shalfeyo Industries Private Limited. The Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (‘CIRP’) proceedings were admitted by the Adjudicating Authority on 16.08.2022, pursuant to which Mr. Umang Jain was appointed as the Interim Resolution Professional who was subsequently confirmed as Resolution Professional (RP).

ii.) Pursuant to the public announcement, Axis Bank Limited submitted its claim as the sole Financial Creditor, and the (Committee of Creditors) was accordingly constituted with Axis Bank as its sole member. In the 1st CoC meeting held on 15.09.2022, Axis Bank stated that the Corporate Debtor had no meaningful assets and that continuation of the CIRP would serve no useful purpose, and accordingly requested that steps be taken for closure of the CIRP.

iii.) Consequent to the initiation of CIRP proceedings, the Appellant’s personal property, which had been furnished as collateral to Axis Bank, was sold and the Appellant deposited the balance outstanding of the Axis Bank thereby meeting the entire claim of Financial Creditor.

iv.) As the claim of the Financial Creditor/ Axis Bank was fully satisfied the Bank withdrew its claim, following which the RP reconstituted the CoC, replacing Axis Bank with Prime Impex, the Operational Creditor/ Respondent No. 3. The said reconstitution was challenged by the Appellant, and the Adjudicating Authority subsequently directed restoration of the CoC to its original composition, namely with Axis Bank as the Financial Creditor.

v.) During the CIRP, the CoC also decided for liquidation of the Corporate Debtor. The resolution for liquidation was passed on 05.11.2022, when the CoC comprised of the Operational Creditor as the sole CoC member, despite two Expressions of Interest having been received.

vi.) Subsequently, the Financial Creditor continued to remain the relevant creditor for the purpose of the CoC, and during the 6th CoC meeting held on 18.09.2023, Axis Bank noted that the entire insolvency proceedings had originated from a claim of approximately Rs. 12 Lakhs and had continued for about one and a half years. Axis Bank accordingly took an initiative to facilitate settlement between Deepak Modi and Prime Impex. The Appellant initially offered payment of Rs. 8 Lakhs along with return of materials valued at Rs. 4 Lakhs and subsequently offered to settle the entire claim of approximately Rs. 12 Lakhs, but the offer was not accepted as the Operational Creditor sought additional compensation and litigation costs.

vii.) In respect of the Operational Creditor, the Appellant agreed to pay the entire claimed amount of Rs. 11.90 Lakhs and placed a demand draft bearing No. 722222 dated 03.12.2024 towards the said amount. The Appellant also provided the draft of Form FA to the Operational Creditor and undertook to pay such fees and expenses of the Resolution Professional as might ultimately be determined by the Adjudicating Authority.

viii.) As the sole Financial Creditor had been fully paid, and that the only other creditor, Prime Impex, had also been offered full payment of its claim, the Appellant sought withdrawal of the CIRP under Section 12A of the IBC read with Regulation 30A of the CIRP Regulations. The withdrawal application in the form FA was filed as IA (IBC) No. 549/JPR/2024 in CP (IB) No. 79/9/JPR/2020 by the Appellant on 20.11.2024 in his capacity as the suspended director of the Corporate Debtor.

ix.) The Adjudicating Authority, while considering IA (IBC) No. 549/JPR/2024, recorded that the application had been filed by Deepak Modi, a suspended director, seeking withdrawal under Section 12A; that the debt of the sole Financial Creditor was stated to have been settled; that the entire claim of the sole Operational Creditor amounting to Rs. 11.90 Lakhs had been offered through demand draft; and that the Appellant had undertaken to pay the RP’s fees and expenses as determined by the Adjudicating Authority.

x.) The Adjudicating Authority duly noted that the Appellant has fully paid the claims of Financial Creditors it has also offered 100% claims of the OCs claims through Demand Draft and the application of IRP for determination of CIRP Cost is pending with the Adjudicating Authority. However, relying on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Glass Trust Company LLC v/s Byju Raveendran and Others [(2024) ibclaw.in 275 SC] : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3032. The Ld. Adjudicating Authority dismissed the prayer filed under Section 12A of the Code as the application has been filed by the applicant who is the suspended Director of the Corporate Debtor and not through the Resolution Professional as mandated under the Code. Ld. Adjudicating Authority further held that the proposal required to be filed with the approval of 90% of voting shares of the CoC, which was not done in this case. It therefore dismissed the application on the grounds that it does not fulfil the mandate of the Code as laid down in Section 12A. The present appeal arises from the same impugned order dated 18.12.2024.

Submissions of the Appellant

# 3. The Ld. Counsel for the Appellant submits that the present matter has, by subsequent developments, reached a position of complete stalemate, notwithstanding the Appellant’s repeated efforts to bring the CIRP to an end. It is submitted that the Appellant had continued to service the loan account even during the CIRP and, in the 5th and 6th meetings of the CoC, Respondent No. 2 itself acknowledged that the account remained regular and that there was no creditor other than the sole Financial Creditor and the Operational Creditor. Respondent No. 2 had also indicated that the CIRP was being unnecessarily prolonged and had facilitated efforts towards settlement. In this process, the Appellant offered to pay Rs. 8 lakhs and return material worth Rs. 4 lakhs lying at site and subsequently even offered the entire amount of Rs. 12 lakhs, but the Operational Creditor declined the offer and sought further compensation and litigation costs.

# 4. The Ld. Counsel submits that, during the pendency of the said proceedings, the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Glass Trust Company LLC v. Byju Raveendran and Others [(2024) ibclaw.in 275 SC] : (2024 SCC OnLine SC 3032) necessitated compliance with the procedure prescribed therein. The Appellant accordingly made further bona fide efforts to resolve all outstanding issues. He agreed to pay the entire claimed amount of Rs. 11.90 lakhs to the Operational Creditor through a demand draft and furnished the requisite Form FA, requesting that the same be forwarded to the RP and placed before the CoC. However, the Operational Creditor declined to forward the Form FA, citing legal advice. Thereafter, the Appellant and the Operational Creditor also attempted to resolve the matter with the RP, but the RP declined the settlement and insisted that his fees and CIRP expenses be determined by the Adjudicating Authority. The Appellant has no objection to such determination.

# 5. It is therefore submitted that, as on date, the substantive claims have either been fully discharged or are capable of being satisfied, and the only surviving issue concerns the CIRP/RP expenses and the procedural steps necessary for closure. The Appellant has consistently expressed his willingness to make payment of any amount found legitimately payable. Even in relation to the RP’s fees, the Appellant has stated that any additional amount which the Adjudicating Authority considers just and proper may be paid so as to bring the proceedings to a close. The Appellant accordingly submits that continued continuation of the CIRP serves no useful purpose when the Financial Creditor’s dues stand settled, the Operational Creditor’s claimed amount has been offered in full, and the remaining issue can be resolved by determination of the RP’s legitimate fees and expenses.

# 6. The Ld. Counsel for Appellant submits that the subsequent developments demonstrate that the matter has reached a stalemate. The Appellant is willing to discharge the amounts found payable, while the necessary steps for placing the withdrawal proposal before the CoC and bringing the CIRP to an end have not materialised. The Appellant therefore prays that, keeping in view the peculiar subsequent developments and the fact that continuation of the CIRP would serve no meaningful insolvency-resolution purpose, appropriate orders may be passed to bring the CIRP to its logical closure, subject to determination and payment of such legitimate CIRP costs, RP fees and expenses as may be found payable by the Adjudicating Authority.

Submissions of the Respondent No.1/RP

# 7. Ld. Counsel submits that the Appellant has presented a distorted account of the proceedings and has attributed the delay in the CIRP to the Respondent, he submits that the record demonstrates that the CIRP has been prolonged on account of repeated disputes, applications and lack of effective cooperation. The Respondent had, from the commencement of the CIRP, attempted to discharge its functions as Resolution Professional, including taking steps for securing the assets and conducting the meetings of the Committee of Creditors. Directions were also passed by the Adjudicating Authority for handing over possession of the assets of the Corporate Debtor. However, the disputes concerning possession, constitution and reconstitution of the CoC, CIRP expenses and other pending applications continued to prevent any effective progress in the CIRP.

# 8. He submits that the subsequent course of the proceedings is particularly relevant. Axis Bank, which ultimately came to constitute the sole CoC member with 100% voting share, had earlier withdrawn its claim, pursuant to which the CoC was reconstituted with operational creditor as sole member of CoC who proposed liquidation of the Corporate Debtor. On an application filed by the Appellant, Ld. Adjudicating Authority passed an order dated 11.08.2023 vide which the CoC was again restored to its original composition with Axis Bank as the sole member. Thereafter, Axis Bank gave consent for proceeding with the liquidation application already pending before the Adjudicating Authority. However, even after repeated proceedings before the Adjudicating Authority, the matter did not progress towards resolution or revival of the Corporate Debtor and instead remained caught between the proposed liquidation, pending applications and the disputes raised by the parties.

# 9. Ld. Counsel submits that the subsequent developments make it clear that the CIRP has effectively reached a stalemate. The 10th CoC meeting records that the application filed by the Appellant under Section 12A seeking withdrawal of the CIRP had been dismissed by the Adjudicating Authority on 18.12.2024, while Axis Bank stated that the entire payment had already been received in its loan account and sought clarity regarding the return of the security documents. The discussions further recorded the competing positions concerning the payment made by the Appellant in his capacity as personal guarantor and the course to be followed for bringing the CIRP to an end. Significantly, during the said proceedings, the RP/Chairman of CoC recorded that there was no possibility of settlement, while the parties themselves discussed either closure of the CIRP or proceeding towards liquidation.

# 10. Ld. Counsel submits that, in view of these subsequent developments, the numerous allegations and disputes raised by the Appellant need not be examined independently for determining the present appeal. The record shows that despite the CIRP having continued for a considerable period, no effective resolution has emerged; the liquidation application remains pending, the Section 12A application has been dismissed; the sole CoC member has expressed its position regarding closure/liquidation; and the parties have themselves failed to arrive at any workable settlement. The Respondent therefore submits that the proceedings have reached a point of complete stalemate, and continuation of the CIRP without any realistic prospect of resolution would serve no useful purpose. The appeal may accordingly be considered in light of these subsequent developments and disposed of in accordance with the circumstances now prevailing.

Submissions of the Respondent No.2/ Axis Bank

# 11. Ld. Counsel for Financial Creditor submits that the present appeal arises from the order dated 18.12.2024 passed by the Learned Adjudicating Authority in CP No. (IB)-79/9/JPR/2020, whereby withdrawal of the CIRP was declined. The CIRP has since continued and reached a stalemate.

# 12. He submits that Axis Bank Ltd. was the sole financial creditor of the Corporate Debtor, but its entire financial exposure was discharged by the Appellant from his own funds by 24.09.2024, resulting in a NIL balance and release of the mortgage and security documents. Axis Bank, therefore, has no subsisting financial claim or continuing interest in the Corporate Debtor.

# 13. It is further submitted that after initiation of the CIRP on 16.08.2022, Axis Bank withdrew its claim under Regulation 12A by emails dated 01.10.2022 and 06.10.2022, and its withdrawal was recorded in the CoC meetings held on 17.10.2022 and 05.11.2022. Consequently, Axis Bank ceased to be a member of the CoC from 07.10.2022 and had no role in the subsequent conduct of the CIRP or the decision to liquidate the Corporate Debtor.

# 14. Ld. Counsel submits that the CIRP costs claimed by Respondent No. 1, stated to be approximately Rs. 35 lakhs against the original operational debt of approximately Rs. 12 lakhs, require independent scrutiny and determination strictly in accordance with Regulation 34B of the IBBI Regulations. In any event, Axis Bank cannot be fastened with costs incurred after its withdrawal from the CoC and cessation of its role in the CIRP.

# 15. Ld. Counsel submits that, in view of the statement recorded on 05.08.2026 by this Appellate Tribunal, Axis Bank has no objection to disposal of the appeal in terms of the proposed settlement, whereby the Appellant has offered Rs. 18,00,000/- to Respondent No. 3 along with CIRP costs as determined by the Learned Adjudicating Authority, and supports early closure of the CIRP.

Submissions of Respondent No.3/ Prime Impex

# 16. Ld. Counsel for Operational Creditor submits that the application for closure of CIRP filed by the Appellant Under Section 12A of the Code was not compliant with Regulation 30A, as the Form FA relied upon was unsigned and merely a draft, and requisite bank guarantee towards CIRP costs was not furnished with application. The Learned Adjudicating Authority, therefore, rightly dismissed the application, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Glass Trust Company LLC Vs. Byju Raveendran & Ors., reported in [(2024) ibclaw.in 275 SC] : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3032”.

# 17. Ld. Counsel submits that, as recorded in the order passed by this Appellate Tribunal on 05.08.2026, the Appellant has expressed willingness to pay Rs. 18 lakhs to Respondent No. 3 along with the CIRP costs determined by the Learned Adjudicating Authority. Respondent No. 3 is willing to accept the said amount and, upon payment of the CIRP costs so determined, execute Form FA under Section 12A of the IBC read with Regulation 30A for bringing the CIRP to an end.

# 18. Ld. Counsel submits that the amendment to the IBC effective from 26.05.2026 does not cure the defects in the application already filed, particularly as the CIRP had proceeded to the stage of invitation of expressions of interest.

# 19. Ld. Counsel submits that, insofar as the order dated 26.09.2022 is concerned, the appeal in which the said interim order was passed was dismissed on 31.03.2023, whereas the liquidation application was filed thereafter on 01.05.2023. There was, therefore, no deliberate violation of the said order. Without prejudice, Respondent No. 3 has already tendered an unconditional apology in case this Hon’ble Appellate Tribunal takes a different view.

# 20. In view of the aforesaid, Respondent No. 3 prays that the appeal be dismissed. In the alternative, appropriate orders may be passed to give effect to the aforesaid settlement, subject to payment of Rs. 18 lakhs and the CIRP costs determined by the Learned Adjudicating Authority.

Analysis and Findings

# 21. We have gone through the documents on record and heard the parties through their Ld. Counsels.

# 22. The CIRP of the Corporate Debtor was initiated on 16.08.2022 on the application of Prime Impex, the Operational Creditor, whose claim was approximately Rs. 11.90 lakhs. Axis Bank was the sole Financial Creditor and had filed a claim of approximately Rs. 1.04 Crore. In the course of the CIRP, no resolution could be achieved as Corporate Debtor has no tangible assets and the CoC resolved to proceed towards liquidation. The Resolution Professional thereafter filed IA No. 243/JPR/2023 under Section 33(2) of the Code seeking liquidation of the Corporate Debtor. The Resolution Professional also filed IA No. 160/2023 for determination of the CIRP costs, which is pending with Ld. Adjudicating Authority.

# 23. Several efforts were made at various stages of proceedings to reach a settlement. The record shows that settlement was discussed on several occasions during the CIRP itself. In the CoC proceedings, the Financial Creditor had noted that the CIRP had been initiated for a claim of only about Rs. 12 lakhs and had continued for a considerable period. The Financial Creditor had also taken an initiative for conciliation and settlement between the parties. The Appellant had made different settlement offers, including an offer to settle the entire claim of the Operational Creditor, though those efforts did not result in a final settlement at that stage.

# 24. The application filed by the Appellant under Section 12A was ultimately dismissed by the Adjudicating Authority by order dated 18.12.2024, principally on the ground that the statutory procedure contemplated under Section 12A of the Code read with Regulation 30A of the CIRP Regulations, 2016 had not been complied with. In particular, the Adjudicating Authority noted the requirement relating to Form FA, approval of the CoC and the CIRP-cost related security/Bank Guarantee. We are conscious that these statutory requirements cannot ordinarily be ignored and that the present proceedings cannot be closed by a simple order allowing withdrawal under Section 12A.

# 25. However, during the pendency of the present Appeal, there have been material developments. On 05.05.2026, this Tribunal recorded that settlement discussions were taking place between the Appellant and the Operational Creditor, but that the parties had reached a deadlock particularly with regard to the CIRP costs, which were already the subject matter of proceedings before the Adjudicating Authority. On 19.05.2026, it was informed that the settlement talks had failed. Thereafter, on 01.07.2026, the Appellant offered Rs. 17 lakhs to the Operational Creditor in full and final settlement, including interest and other amounts, and undertook to pay the CIRP costs as determined by the Adjudicating Authority. Importantly, on being specifically asked by this Tribunal, the Operational Creditor did not dispute the amount of Rs. 17 lakhs and the remaining issue was stated to be with regard to Form FA and the Bank Guarantee. We accordingly directed the Appellant to place his undertaking on affidavit.

# 26. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction, the Appellant filed the Affidavit in Compliance dated 29.07.2026. This affidavit is important because it converts the statement made before the Tribunal into a formal undertaking. The Appellant placed on record that the claim of the sole Financial Creditor, Axis Bank, of approximately Rs. 1.04 Crore, had been settled by payment of Rs. 1.28 Crore. In relation to the Operational Creditor, the Appellant undertook to pay Rs. 17 lakhs against the claim of approximately Rs. 11.90/11.95 lakhs towards full and final settlement. Most importantly, the Appellant also undertook to pay the CIRP costs as may ultimately be determined by the Adjudicating Authority in accordance with law. The affidavit was thus not a mere expression of willingness to negotiate; it contained a specific undertaking regarding payment of the creditors’ claims as well as the CIRP costs. The Affidavit dated 29.07.2026 is extracted below: . . . .

27. Thereafter in the hearing on 05.08.2026, the position was further clarified before this Tribunal. Learned counsel for the Appellant, on instructions, stated that the Appellant was ready to pay Rs. 18 lakhs to Prime Impex as full and final settlement to which the Ld. Counsel for Operational Creditor agreed. Thus, even the amount offered to the Operational Creditor was subsequently enhanced from Rs. 17 lakhs to Rs. 18 lakhs. The dispute regarding CIRP costs, which had earlier prevented the settlement from being completed, is not being left unresolved by the Appellant; rather, the Appellant has expressly agreed to abide by whatever amount is determined by the Adjudicating Authority in IA No. 160/2023.

# 28. When the entire factual position is considered together, certain peculiarities of this CIRP Proceeding become clear, which are given below:

• i. The CIRP was initiated essentially on a relatively small operational debt of about Rs. 11.90 lakhs.

• ii. The sole Financial Creditor, Axis Bank, has already been paid in full.

• iii. The sole Operational Creditor is being offered Rs. 18 lakhs against its original claim of Rs. 11.90 Lakhs as full and final settlement. There is no other creditor in the instant proceedings.

• iv. There is no resolution plan presently available, which can take the Corporate Debtor towards resolution.

• v. The Appellant has agreed to pay the CIRP Costs, which is pending adjudication in IA No. 160/2023 before the Ld. Adjudicating Authority.

This clearly shows that no useful purpose is being served by keeping this CIRP alive, except for wastage of precious time of this Appellate Tribunal and wasteful increase in CIRP Cost.

# 29. When we consider the submission of the RP, his concern regarding CIRP costs cannot be said to be without basis. CIRP costs are legitimate statutory expenses and cannot simply be waived or assumed. Similarly, the objection regarding compliance with Section 12A and Regulation 30A was legally relevant when the original withdrawal application was considered. However, that does not answer the present question. The Appellant is now expressly undertaking to pay the CIRP costs as determined by the Adjudicating Authority, and the determination of those costs is already pending before the NCLT. Therefore, the legitimate interest of the RP in recovery of properly determined CIRP costs is protected without requiring the CIRP itself to continue indefinitely.

# 30. During the hearing, it was brought to our notice that application for withdrawal of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process has to be made by the Applicant initiating the CIRP Process in Form FA, which in this case is Prime Impex/ Respondent No.3. The Applicant also has to attach bank guarantee equivalent to CIRP Cost till the date of filing of application, as provided in Regulation 30A(2) of CIRP Regulations, 2016. The Operational Creditor refused to provide bank guarantees as the CIRP Cost claimed by the RP was much higher than its claim. Therefore, in-spite of paying the Financial Creditor in full; submitting a bank draft of entire claim of Operational Creditor upto that time; the Appellant could not get the Operational Creditor and Resolution Professional to agree to sign and file the application under Section 12A. In such a situation, Appellant himself submitted the Form-FA with an undertaking that he would pay the dues of the RP as decided by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority, for which an application has already been filed by the RP with the Ld. Adjudicating Authority. However, the Ld. Adjudicating Authority did not accept the submission of Appellant and rejected the application on the grounds of non-compliance with the procedure laid down in Section 12A of the Code r/w Regulation 30A of CIRP Regulations, 2016.

# 31. As we have noted earlier the Appellant in its affidavit dated 29.07.2026 has stated that he has made full payment to the Financial Creditor/ Axis Bank and the bank is on record stating that they have no further claims. Further, he is willing to make a payment of Rs. 17 lakhs to the Operational Creditor as full and final settlement. Subsequently, during the hearing on 05.08.2026 the Ld. Counsel for Applicant under instructions of his client stated that he is ready to pay Rs. 18 lakhs to the Operational Creditor/ Respondent No.3 which was agreed to by Ld. Counsel for Respondent No. 3 as full and final settlement of his claim. Ld. Counsel for Appellant further stated that he is also willing to pay the CIRP Cost which would be determined by the Adjudicating Authority.

# 32. In these proceedings, we note that the claims of all the creditors have now been settled. The CIRP Cost is to be determined by the Adjudicating Authority and the Appellant has agreed to pay the amount, which would be determined by the Adjudicating Authority. However, the CIRP Process has effectively reached a procedural stalemate, as the Form FA cannot be filed in the present situation due to peculiar situation prevailing, wherein the CIRP Cost is not crystallised and there is a dispute regarding the same between the Appellant and RP, which is pending with Adjudicating Authority. The amount for Bank Guarantee to be attached with Form FA cannot be determined in such a situation. Further, Operational Creditor is also not willing to provide the bank guarantee. In such a situation, the procedure as laid down by Section 12A of the Code and Regulation 30A is not feasible option in this proceeding. Keeping the CIRP alive is not serving any purpose nor it would be in accordance with the objectives of the Code which seeks to resolve the insolvency and keep it as a going concern. We are of the view that, the company is a viable entity and keeping the CIRP alive merely because the earlier statutory withdrawal mechanism could not be completed, would be huge wastage of precious resources in terms of time of Tribunals which could be productively used to dispose other important proceedings.

# 33. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the view that in the peculiar circumstances of the present case, continuation of the CIRP would serve no meaningful purpose and would only result in further wastage of precious resources. We therefore dispose of this appeal with the following directions: –

• (i) The CIRP Proceedings against the Corporate Debtor/ Shalfeyo Industries Pvt. Ltd. are closed subject to the condition that as per the undertaking, the Appellant would pay Rs.18 lakhs to Respondent No.3/ Prime Impex within two weeks of this order as full and final settlement;

• (ii) Ld. Adjudicating Authority to determine the CIRP costs in IA No. 160/2023 within four weeks from the receipt of this order, after considering the claim of the Resolution Professional and the submission of the Appellant; and

• (iii) The Appellant would pay the CIRP costs as determined by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority within two weeks from the order.

# 34. Pending IA’s if any are closed. No order as to costs.

----------------------------------------------------------