Gstaad Hotels Private Limited

Total plan funding, as printed

Rs. 16,11,00,00,000 (Rupees One Thousand Six Hundred and Eleven Crores only)

Upfront amount, as printed

Rs. 1,611,00,00,000

Payout horizon as printed

Upfront on Payment Date (within 30 days of Approval Date)

Plan term as printed

The implementation and term of the Plan shall commence from the Approval Date and continue until the Transfer Date. All payments to stakeholders shall be made on an upfront basis on the Payment Date, which shall be no later than 30 days from the Approval Date. The Transfer Date, by which all implementation steps including capital restructuring and reconstitution of the Board shall be completed, shall be no later than 30 days from the Approval Date.

Cirp cost treatment

Unpaid CIRP Costs shall be paid in priority to all other payments on the Payment Date, in accordance with Section 30(2)(a) of the Code. Interim Process Costs shall be borne by the Resolution Applicant at actuals, over and above the Resolution Plan Amount, and shall be paid after the Unpaid CIRP Costs but before any distribution to other stakeholders (para 28). Bench at para 91: CIRP costs falling under Regulation 31(e) require CoC approval apart from RP costs fixed under Regulation 34; any unverified or disputed element of CIRP cost not approved by the CoC 'shall have to be excluded from the consideration thereof under the resolution plan', but this does not merit consideration here and does not constitute a material irregularity.

Performance security

Rs. 161,10,00,000/-, being 10% of the Resolution Plan value

Performance security instrument

BG

Earnest money deposit

Rs. 5,00,00,000/-

Units note

Form-H realisable-amount table and the admitted-claims table are printed in absolute rupees (Indian digit grouping). Fair Value and Liquidation Value are printed in Crores. Plan value is printed both in absolute rupees ('Rs. 16,11,00,00,000') and as 'INR 1,611 crores' / 'Rs. 1,611 Crores'. Para 27 prints the upfront aggregate with a non-standard grouping ('Rs. 1,611,00,00,000') and para 21/36 print the performance guarantee as 'Rs. 161,10,00,000'.

Form-H realisable-amount table and the admitted-claims table are printed in absolute rupees (Indian digit grouping). Fair Value and Liquidation Value are printed in Crores. Plan value is printed both in absolute rupees ('Rs. 16,11,00,00,000') and as 'INR 1,611 crores' / 'Rs. 1,611 Crores'. Para 27 prints the upfront aggregate with a non-standard grouping ('Rs. 1,611,00,00,000') and para 21/36 print the performance guarantee as 'Rs. 161,10,00,000'.

Form H · 16 rows

1. Seq

   1

   Beneficiary

   Unpaid CIRP Costs

   Timing as printed

   Paid in priority to all other payments on the Payment Date, in accordance with Section 30(2)(a) of the Code

2. Seq

   2

   Beneficiary

   Interim Process Costs

   Amount as printed

   at actuals, over and above the Resolution Plan Amount

   Timing as printed

   Paid after the Unpaid CIRP Costs but before any distribution to other stakeholders; borne by the Resolution Applicant

3. Seq

   3

   Beneficiary

   Secured Financial Creditors — Assenting

   Amount as printed

   15,58,35,00,644

   Timing as printed

   Upfront on Payment Date (within 30 days of Approval Date)

4. Seq

   4

   Beneficiary

   Unsecured Financial Creditors — Creditors not having a right to vote under sub-section (2) of section 21

   Amount as printed

   82,48,164

   Timing as printed

   Upfront on Payment Date

5. Seq

   5

   Beneficiary

   Unsecured Financial Creditors — Dissenting

   Amount as printed

   11,83,50,867

   Timing as printed

   Upfront on Payment Date

6. Seq

   6

   Beneficiary

   Operational Creditors — i. Government

   Amount as printed

   1,41,45,465

   Timing as printed

   Upfront on Payment Date

7. Seq

   7

   Beneficiary

   Operational Creditors — iii. Employees (Other dues)

   Amount as printed

   27,026

   Timing as printed

   Upfront on Payment Date

8. Seq

   8

   Beneficiary

   Operational Creditors — iv. Other Operational Creditors

   Amount as printed

   38,40,38,300

   Timing as printed

   Upfront on Payment Date

9. Seq

   9

   Beneficiary

   Corporate Debtor — initial equity subscription by the Implementing Entity

   Amount as printed

   Rs. 1,00,00,000/-

   Timing as printed

   Infusion into the Corporate Debtor towards initial equity subscription, against issue of 10,00,000 equity shares of Rs. 10/- each to the Implementing Entity

Entity type

company

Promoter / former management

No

Related party finding

Form H, SRA details Sr. No. 3 — 'Relationship status of SRA with CD, if any: None' (p.17). Form H Sr. No. 5 records the s.29A due diligence report issued by M/s. Aylegum Advisory LLP on October 14, 2025 (Annexure 2 to Exhibit B @ Pg 216-273). RP certified at Form H para 43(ii) that the SRA 'has submitted an affidavit pursuant to section 30(1) of the Code confirming its eligibility under section 29A of the Code to submit resolution plan. The contents of the said affidavit are in order.' Bench at para 100: 'The Resolution Plan is not in contravention of any of the provisions of Section 29A of the Code'.

MSME Section 240A route

No

Sources of funds

Para 35 (Source of Funds): 'The Resolution Applicant proposes to fund the Resolution Amount of INR 1,611 crores from its own sources and/or group company funds and/or through external debt raised from banks and financial institutions. The funds shall be infused into the Corporate Debtor by the Implementing Entity, directly or indirectly, by way of equity, quasi-equity, debt, convertible securities, subordinate convertible loans, or a combination thereof.' Para 27 adds that the Resolution Amount shall be funded by the Resolution Applicant and/or the Implementing Entity from their own funds, group company funds and/or external borrowings from banks or financial institutions.

Post plan management

Para 25 (Manpower): strengthening of management and manpower through appointment of turnaround experts, key managerial personnel and other suitably qualified personnel, including CEO, COO, CFO and personnel in sales, marketing, finance, HR and operations, together with appropriate incentive and monitoring mechanisms. No individuals are named. Para 37: reconstitution of the Board is an implementation step to be completed by the Transfer Date, no later than 30 days from the Approval Date.

Statutory dues

Government operational creditors: Amount Claimed 1,41,45,465 / Admitted 1,41,45,465 / Realisable 1,41,45,465 / 100%, upfront on the Payment Date. Para 98(f): no orders levying any tax, demand or penalty from the Corporate Debtor in relation to the period up to approval shall be passed by any authority and such demand, if created, shall not be enforceable as having extinguished. Para 101(ii): approval shall not be construed as waiver of statutory obligations/liabilities, which shall be dealt with by the appropriate Authorities in accordance with law, in light of Ghanshyam Mishra.

Operational creditors

Para 29: payment of 100% of the admitted claims of the Operational Creditors in accordance with Section 30(2)(b) and Regulation 38(1); admitted claims to be paid in full and final settlement on the Payment Date, after payment of the CIRP Costs and Interim Process Costs, and in priority to the payments proposed to the Financial Creditors. Form-H table: Other Operational Creditors — Claimed 46,32,76,501 / Admitted 38,40,38,300 / Realisable 38,40,38,300 / 82.90 % of claimed, upfront on the Payment Date.

Workmen employees

Form-H table: Workmen (PF dues and Other dues) — N/A across all columns. Employees — PF dues N/A; Other dues Claimed 27,026 / Admitted 27,026 / Realisable 27,026 / 100.00% of claimed, upfront on the Payment Date. Para 41: by order dated 02.06.2026 in IA (I.B.C)/2098(MB)2026 this Tribunal condoned delay and directed inclusion of claims aggregating Rs. 65,48,402/- of certain Operational Creditors and an Employee. No employee headcount is printed.

Guarantors

Para 101(i): the approved plan shall be binding on the Corporate Debtor, its employees, members, creditors, including the Central Government, any State Government or any local authority to whom a debt is due, guarantors and other stakeholders involved in the Resolution Plan. Para 52 records that the objectors are suspended directors and guarantors, besides being promoters and majority shareholders of the Corporate Debtor. No specific guarantee carve-out or release is printed.

Assets description

Form H, Details of CIRP and Resolution Plan Sr. No. 2: 'The Corporate Debtor is engaged in the business of owning hotel properties and hospitality related activities.' Para 23: the plan envisages proposed redevelopment and refurbishment of its hotel premises into a high-end mixed-use property comprising luxury hospitality, residential and retail/commercial facilities, including fine-dining and premium office spaces. Form H records the Corporate Debtor is not an MSME. Para 17 refers to the continuation of the Marriott arrangement as a point of difference between competing plans.

Going concern status

Para 23: the Resolution Plan envisages continuation of the Corporate Debtor as a going concern. Para 97: the Tribunal is satisfied the plan 'meets the objective of maximisation of value and revival of the Corporate Debtor as a going concern.'

Interim resolution professional

Mr. Jayesh Sanghrajka

RP replaced the IRP

No

Invitations for expressions of interest

1. Round no

   1

   Form g date

   2025-08-30

   Eoi last date

   2025-09-25

   Expressions of interest received

   43

   Final list count

   40

   Plans received

   13

   Outcome

   plan approved

Applicants considered

1. Name

   Shree Naman Developers Private Limited

   Stage reached

   approved

   Plan value as printed

   Rs. 16,11,00,00,000 (Rupees One Thousand Six Hundred and Eleven Crores only)

   Vote pct

   98.96%

   Outcome note

   Successful Resolution Applicant; included in the final list of 40 eligible PRAs published 27.10.2025; plan dated 12.03.2026 with clarification dated 07.05.2026; LOI issued 11.05.2026; performance bank guarantee of Rs. 161,10,00,000/- dated 14.05.2026 furnished through HDFC Bank Limited in favour of Omkara Assets Reconstruction Private Limited. Nature of business per Form H: 'Real estate development with diversified interests in hospitality and allied sectors.'

Bidding mechanism

negotiation — in the 9th CoC meeting on 24.12.2025 the CoC, noting material differences in structure and commercial terms of the plans (treatment of cash balances, continuation of the Marriott arrangement, statutory dues, reliefs sought from Government authorities and the implementation reference date), decided to proceed with bilateral discussions, clarifications and negotiations with the respective Resolution Applicants instead of conducting a challenge mechanism, the RFRP having vested that discretion in the CoC. A tie-breaker mechanism under Regulation 39(3B) was approved in the 16th CoC meeting (Evaluation Matrix score, maximum NPV offered to all creditors, maximum upfront cash payment to secured financial creditors).

Evaluation matrix present

Yes

Clock events

1. Kind

   extension

   Granted date

   2026-01-08

   Reason

   Form H Sr. No. 18 — 'Date of Order extending the period of CIRP on request filed by RP: Extension of CIRP Period • January 8, 2026 • April 7, 2026'. Date of expiry of 180 days of CIRP: January 04, 2026; date of expiry of extended period of CIRP: May 19, 2026. No day-count is printed for either extension.

2. Kind

   extension

   Granted date

   2026-04-07

   Reason

   Second CIRP extension order per Form H Sr. No. 18. No day-count printed.

Advisors

1. Role

   Transaction Auditor

   Name

   M/s Nangia & Co. LLP

   Note

   Appointed with CoC approval to examine transactions of the Corporate Debtor in relation to preferential, undervalued, extortionate credit and fraudulent transactions under Sections 43, 45, 50 and 66 of the Code (para 9).

2. Role

   Registered Valuer

   Name

   KKCA Valuers LLP

   Note

   Appointment approved in the 2nd CoC meeting on 21.08.2025 for determination of fair value and liquidation value; date of appointment of Registered Valuers per Form H: August 24, 2025. Para 95 attributes a liquidation value of Rs. 1009.01 Crores to KKCA Valuers LLP.

3. Role

   Registered Valuer

   Name

   RNC Valuecon LLP

   Note

   Appointment approved in the 2nd CoC meeting on 21.08.2025. Para 95 attributes a liquidation value of Rs. 1047.65 Crores to RNC Valuecon LLP.

4. Role

   Section 29A due diligence

   Name

   M/s. Aylegum Advisory LLP

   Note

   Section 29A due diligence report for the SRA issued on October 14, 2025, annexed as Annexure 2 to Exhibit B @ Pg 216-273 of the Plan Approval Application (Form H, SRA details Sr. No. 5).

5. Role

   Chartered Accountants — loan-account computation relied on for admission of the Omkara claim

   Name

   Mukund M. Chitale & Co.

   Note

   Recited from this Tribunal's order dated 08.07.2025 (para 72); placed on record loan account statements for 28 December 2017 to 15 January 2025 for commercial loans availed by the Corporate Debtor and NCPPL from PCHFL and PEL. RP's counsel clarified the claim of Omkara was admitted on the basis of the working provided in this report (para 73).

6. Role

   Chartered Accountants engaged by the objectors (review report)

   Name

   BK Ramadhyani & Co. LLP

   Note

   Report dated 26.04.2025 titled 'Report on Review of Commercial Loan Outstanding — 2', recited from the order dated 08.07.2025 (para 72); the Tribunal found it did not fault the computation of the default amount but questioned the quantum on interest-rate grounds.

1. Creditor

   Omkara Assets Reconstruction Private Limited

   Creditor class

   financial_creditor — principal secured financial creditor (para 8)

   Voting pct

   95.76%

   Vote

   for

2. Creditor

   Global Hospitality Licensing S.A.R.L.

   Creditor class

   financial_creditor — class not stated

   Voting pct

   3.20%

   Vote

   for

3. Creditor

   Kanazawa Holdings Private Limited

   Creditor class

   financial_creditor — unsecured (para 8)

   Voting pct

   0.91%

   Vote

   abstained

4. Creditor

   Ahuja Finance Company Pvt Ltd

   Creditor class

   financial_creditor — unsecured (para 8, printed as 'Ahuja Finance Company Private Limited')

   Voting pct

   0.13%

   Vote

   abstained

Dissenting fc treatment

Para 30: the dissenting Financial Creditors shall receive at least the amount payable to them in accordance with Section 53(1) of the Code in the event of liquidation of the Corporate Debtor, and such payment shall be made in priority to the payments to assenting Financial Creditors, in compliance with Section 30(2)(b). The Form-H realisable table shows, under Unsecured Financial Creditors, a 'Dissenting' line of Amount Claimed 14,72,49,590 / Amount Admitted 11,83,50,867 / Realisable 11,83,50,867 / 80.37 % of claimed, payable upfront on the Payment Date; the Secured Financial Creditors 'Dissenting' line is N/A. No dissenting creditor is named in the order — no creditor is recorded as having voted against; Kanazawa Holdings Private Limited and Ahuja Finance Company Pvt Ltd are recorded as having abstained.

Section 30(2)(b) minimum stated

Yes

Business & treatment of stakeholders

Upon implementation, the entire existing issued, subscribed and paid-up equity share capital (other than the newly issued equity shares subscribed by the Resolution Applicant/Implementing Entity or their nominees) and the preference share capital of the Corporate Debtor shall stand extinguished without payment of any consideration, on the ground that the existing share capital is not represented by the available assets of the Corporate Debtor (para 33). The Implementing Entity shall infuse Rs. 1,00,00,000/- towards initial equity subscription, against which the Corporate Debtor shall issue 10,00,000 equity shares of Rs. 10/- each (para 32). Bench at para 92: 'In accordance with the settled law, the shareholders equity stands extinguished in terms of the approved resolution plan, even if such Extinguishment extends to non-promoter shareholding.' Bench at paras 89 and 92 further directs that residual resolution money after full settlement of creditors' claims including interest, and unadjudicated avoidance recoveries, shall accrue to the shareholders.

Capital reduction

Yes

Effective date definition

Para 101: the Resolution Plan 'shall become effective from this date' (03.09.2026) and shall form part of the order. Para 37: implementation and term of the Plan commence from the Approval Date and continue until the Transfer Date; the Payment Date shall be no later than 30 days from the Approval Date and the Transfer Date, by which all implementation steps including capital restructuring and reconstitution of the Board are to be completed, shall be no later than 30 days from the Approval Date. Para 98(d) refers to business permits which have expired on the 'Effective Date'; the plan's own definition of Effective Date is not reproduced in the order.

Monitoring committee

Para 34: a Monitoring Committee shall be constituted consisting of (a) 2 representatives of the CoC; (b) 2 representatives of the Resolution Applicant; and (c) the Resolution Professional acting as Interim Manager, or any other person appointed by the Resolution Applicant with the consent of the CoC representatives. No individuals are named. Para 101(vi): the Applicant shall supervise the implementation of the Resolution Plan and file status of its implementation before this Authority from time to time, preferably every quarter.

Monitoring committee members

1. Name

   (not named)

   Role

   2 representatives of the CoC

2. Name

   (not named)

   Role

   2 representatives of the Resolution Applicant

3. Name

   Mr. Jayesh Sanghrajka (Resolution Professional), or any other person appointed by the Resolution Applicant with the consent of the CoC representatives

   Role

   Resolution Professional acting as Interim Manager

1. Seq

   1

   Relief

   (all reliefs, en bloc) — reliefs, concessions and waivers set out in the Resolution Plan under Appendix VI or any other section of the Plan

   Category

   other

   Disposition

   deferred_to_authority

   Reason

   Para 98: 'The reliefs & concessions set out in the Resolution Plan as "Reliefs concessions and waivers" under Appendix VI or any other section of the Resolution Plan shall be in accordance with the principle laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Ghanshyam Mishra and Sons Private Limited v/s. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited {[2021] 13 S.C.R. 737} and Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai vs. Abhilash Lal and Ors. (2019) ibclaw.in 480 NCLAT subject to the observations or limitations in the following paras.' Para 101(ii) adds that approval shall not be construed as waiver of statutory obligations/liabilities and that any waiver sought shall be subject to approval by the concerned Authorities in light of Ghanshyam Mishra.

2. Seq

   2

   Relief

   Waiver of additional fees payable to the Registrar of Companies on forms filed in relation to reduction in capital and issuance of fresh capital

   Category

   other

   Disposition

   granted

   Reason

   Para 98(a): 'The Applicant shall file necessary forms and pay prescribed fees, if any, in terms of provisions of the Companies Act, 2013 in relation to reduction in capital and issuance of fresh capital, however, the Registrar of Companies shall waive the additional fees, if any, payable on such filing.'

3. Seq

   3

   Relief

   Increase in authorised capital without fee / examination of tax implications of the accounting treatment proposed in the Plan

   Category

   tax

   Disposition

   deferred_to_authority

   Reason

   Para 98(b): 'Any increase in the authorized capital shall be subject to payment of prescribed fee, if any applicable, and filing of prescribed forms with the Registrar of Companies. The Income Tax Department shall be at liberty to examine the tax implications arising from accounting treatment, if any, proposed in the Plan in terms of Section 2(24), Section 28 and Section 56 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with GAAR provisions thereunder.'

4. Seq

   4

   Relief

   Waiver/reduction in fees, charges, stamp duty and registration fees arising from actions contemplated under the Resolution Plan

   Category

   stamp_duty

   Disposition

   deferred_to_authority

   Reason

   Para 98(c): 'The SRA may approach prescribed authorities for waiver/reduction in fees, charges, stamp duty, and registration fees, if any arising from actions contemplated under the Resolution Plan and such request shall be dealt with subject to the relevant law/statute and adherence to the procedure prescribed thereunder.'

5. Seq

   5

   Relief

   Continuance/renewal of all Business Permits, rights, entitlements, benefits, subsidies and privileges; no action for pre-approval non-compliances

   Category

   licences_approvals

   Disposition

   conditional

   Reason

   Para 98(d): the SRA may file appropriate applications for renewal upon payment of prescribed fees; 'It is clarified that continuance of approvals shall not be refused on account of extinguishment of any dues under IBC and extension or renewal thereof shall not be denied on account of past insolvency of the Corporate Debtor. No action shall lie against the Corporate Debtor for any non-compliances arising prior to the date of approval of Resolution Plan, however, such non-compliances shall be cured, if necessitated to keep the approval in force, after acquisition by the Corporate Debtor within period stipulated in the Resolution Plan.'

6. Seq

   6

   Relief

   Continuation of contracts with third parties

   Category

   contracts

   Disposition

   conditional

   Reason

   Para 98(e): 'The contract with third parties shall be subject to consent of such parties.'

7. Seq

   7

   Relief

   Immunity from tax demands, other demands and penalties relating to the period up to approval of the Resolution Plan

   Category

   tax

   Disposition

   granted

   Reason

   Para 98(f): 'No orders levying any tax, demand or penalty from the Corporate Debtor in relation to period up to approval of the Resolution Plan shall be passed by any authority and such demand, if created, shall not enforceable as having extinguished in terms of approved Resolution Plan.'

8. Seq

   8

   Relief

   Carry forward of losses and unabsorbed depreciation; applicability of Section 115JB; carry forward of input tax credit under Indirect Tax

   Category

   tax

   Disposition

   deferred_to_authority

   Reason

   Para 98(g): 'The carry forward of losses and unabsorbed depreciation shall be available in accordance with the provisions of Income Tax Act or Rules made thereunder, and the Income Tax Department shall be at liberty to examine the same. Further, applicability of Section 115 JB or other provisions of Income Tax Act shall be subject to and in accordance with the provisions of Income Tax Act or Rules made thereunder. Further, the concerned tax authorities shall be at liberty to examine the carry forward of input tax credit available under Indirect Tax for its further carry forward.'

9. Seq

   9

   Relief

   Compounding/condonation of past non-compliances and waiver of fines and penalties for non-compliances up to the date of approval

   Category

   statutory_dues

   Disposition

   conditional

   Reason

   Para 98(h): 'An application for compounding/condoning shall be filed in accordance with the procedure specified in respective law or concerned authority, however, no fine or penalty shall be imposed for non-compliances till the date of approval of this Plan or such further period as is permitted in terms of this Order.'

10. Seq

    10

    Relief

    ROC to update records and reflect the Corporate Debtor as 'Active'; physical acceptance and back-end upload of forms; exemption from using the words 'and reduced'

    Category

    licences_approvals

    Disposition

    granted

    Reason

    Para 98(i): 'ROC shall update the records and reflect the Corporate Debtor as "Active" upon filing of pending returns/forms after payment of normal fees (not additional fee). In case such filing is not permitted by the e-filing portal, the ROC shall accept such forms/returns in physical format and manage to upload the same by back-end. The Corporate Debtor shall be exempted from using the words "and reduced".'

11. Seq

    11

    Relief

    Time to complete compliances relating to statutory appointments

    Category

    other

    Disposition

    conditional

    Reason

    Para 98(j): 'The Compliances under the applicable law for all the statutory appointments by the Corporate Debtor shall be completed within 12 months or such further period as is stipulated in the plan, where after, the necessary consequence under respective law shall follow.'

12. Seq

    12

    Relief

    Any relief, concession or waiver prayed in the Resolution Plan but not specifically dealt with in paras 98(a) to 98(j)

    Category

    other

    Disposition

    declined

    Reason

    Para 98(k): 'It is clarified that any relief, concession or waiver prayed in the Resolution Plan but not specifically dealt with in Para 98 (a) to (j) above, save as otherwise permissible in terms of Ghanshyam Mishra and Sons Private Limited (supra) or specific provisions of the Code read with the Regulations, shall be deemed to be denied or rejected.'

1. Objector

   Mr. Deepak B. Raheja and Mrs. Anita D. Raheja, in their capacity as members of the Suspended Board of Directors of Gstaad Hotels Private Limited (also recorded at para 52 as guarantors, promoters and majority shareholders)

   Objector class

   ex_promoter

   Ground

   Prayer: reject and/or refuse approval of the Resolution Plan as non-compliant with the mandatory requirements of Sections 30(2), 30(2)(e), 30(4) and 31 of the Code and the CIRP Regulations; declare the claim verification exercise vitiated by material irregularities (Sections 18, 21, 25 and 208 r/w Regulations 13, 14, 36, 38 and 39); declare that CoC voting shares and decisions require reconsideration; direct reconstitution of the CoC; direct the RP to place on record complete borrower-wise, facility-wise and transaction-wise reconciliation; and pass orders regarding the conduct of the Resolution Professional (para 49(a)-(f))

   Ia number

   IA (IBC)/2516/2026

   Disposition

   dismissed

   Effect on approval

   None — the Resolution Plan was approved and the IA was dismissed by the same order (para 101).

2. Objector

   Mr. Deepak B. Raheja and Mrs. Anita D. Raheja (Suspended Board)

   Objector class

   ex_promoter

   Ground

   (a) Related party issues not fully resolved and defective constitution of committee of creditors and its classification

   Ia number

   IA (IBC)/2516/2026

   Disposition

   dismissed

   Effect on approval

   Rejected at paras 74-78: Kanazawa's association through Royal Investments Limited (holding less than 20% of the CD, common director Mr. Ashok Ahwatani) does not make it a related party under s.5(24); Ahuja Finance is a related party under s.2(76)(iv) Companies Act but not under s.5(24)(d) IBC because Sunil Ahuja (CD director) is not a director of Ahuja Finance. Relying on Phoenix ARC v. Spade Financial and EPC Constructions v. Matix Fertilisers, 'the allegation of objectors in relation to defective constitution of CoC and unresolved related party issues has no substance.'

3. Objector

   Mr. Deepak B. Raheja and Mrs. Anita D. Raheja (Suspended Board)

   Objector class

   ex_promoter

   Ground

   (b) The resolution professional failed to preserve the corporate debtor as a going concern and caused erosion of enterprise value

   Ia number

   IA (IBC)/2516/2026

   Disposition

   dismissed

   Effect on approval

   Dismissed with the IA; not separately adjudicated in a dedicated paragraph.

4. Objector

   Mr. Deepak B. Raheja and Mrs. Anita D. Raheja (Suspended Board)

   Objector class

   ex_promoter

   Ground

   (c) Implementation of the alleged assignment contradicted by the contemporaneous record (Piramal continued to exercise control over borrower accounts, issue instructions to IDBI Trusteeship and receive recoveries notwithstanding the assignment to Omkara ARC)

   Ia number

   IA (IBC)/2516/2026

   Disposition

   dismissed

   Effect on approval

   Rejected at para 69: the assignment issue was decided by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in favour of the Financial Creditor and the NCLAT held 'no fault can be found in the assignment at this stage'; 'Accordingly, the objection to in relation to assignment of debt, including assignability of ECLGS facility, from Piramal to Omkara can not be considered at this stage.'

5. Objector

   Mr. Deepak B. Raheja and Mrs. Anita D. Raheja (Suspended Board)

   Objector class

   ex_promoter

   Ground

   (d) Failure to verify compliance with the security trustee arrangement and transfer of beneficial interest

   Ia number

   IA (IBC)/2516/2026

   Disposition

   dismissed

   Effect on approval

   Rejected at para 71: 'The alleged noncompliance with security trustee arrangement or any alleged deficiency in perfection of security interest are not relevant consideration in the present matter, even if there may be one, as all the creditors, whether secured or unsecured, are being paid in full.'

6. Objector

   Mr. Deepak B. Raheja and Mrs. Anita D. Raheja (Suspended Board)

   Objector class

   ex_promoter

   Ground

   (e) Failure to examine legality of ECLGS assignment

   Ia number

   IA (IBC)/2516/2026

   Disposition

   dismissed

   Effect on approval

   Rejected at para 69 along with the assignment objection — assignability of the ECLGS facility from Piramal to Omkara 'can not be considered at this stage'.

7. Objector

   Mr. Deepak B. Raheja and Mrs. Anita D. Raheja (Suspended Board)

   Objector class

   ex_promoter

   Ground

   (f) Inflated claim admission and failure of claim verification

   Ia number

   IA (IBC)/2516/2026

   Disposition

   dismissed

   Effect on approval

   Rejected at para 73: the Omkara claim was admitted on the basis of the working in the Mukund M. Chitale & Co. report, the objectors' own reviewer (BK Ramadhyani & Co. LLP) found no fault in the computation of the default amount, and 'we do not find any merit in allegation of inflated claim being admitted by the Resolution professional or non-provision of facility wise computation.'

8. Objector

   Mr. Deepak B. Raheja and Mrs. Anita D. Raheja (Suspended Board)

   Objector class

   ex_promoter

   Ground

   (g) Improper allocation of un adjudicated avoidance recoveries

   Ia number

   IA (IBC)/2516/2026

   Disposition

   partly_allowed

   Effect on approval

   Para 92: 'Since the creditors are being fully paid in the present case, unadjudicated avoidance recoveries can not be allocated to them. Accordingly, those recoveries will accrue to the shareholders.' The IA was nonetheless dismissed as a whole.

9. Objector

   Mr. Deepak B. Raheja and Mrs. Anita D. Raheja (Suspended Board)

   Objector class

   ex_promoter

   Ground

   (h) Unverified payment of Rs.435.60 crores towards accrued interest resulting in a recovery of 138.78%, to secured financial creditors

   Ia number

   IA (IBC)/2516/2026

   Disposition

   dismissed

   Effect on approval

   Rejected at paras 80-84 relying on Mr. Arun Kumar v. Ms. Sripriya Kumar (interest continues to accumulate until repayment; IBC does not decide contractual interest liability), Rosario D'Souza v. Union Bank of India ('The financial debt always has the time value and such time values continues till the debts are paid') and Manav Investments v. Pratim Bayal.

10. Objector

    Mr. Deepak B. Raheja and Mrs. Anita D. Raheja (Suspended Board)

    Objector class

    ex_promoter

    Ground

    (i) Arbitrary extinguishment of shareholder value despite secured financial creditors receiving 138.78 % recovery

    Ia number

    IA (IBC)/2516/2026

    Disposition

    partly_allowed

    Effect on approval

    Extinguishment upheld (para 92) but the bench clarified at para 89 that residual resolution money after full settlement of creditors' claims including interest must accrue to the shareholders, and directed at para 101 that an updated Form H reflecting that allocation be filed.

11. Objector

    Mr. Deepak B. Raheja and Mrs. Anita D. Raheja (Suspended Board)

    Objector class

    ex_promoter

    Ground

    (j) Extinguishment of unencumbered third-party shareholding

    Ia number

    IA (IBC)/2516/2026

    Disposition

    dismissed

    Effect on approval

    Rejected at para 92: 'In accordance with the settled law, the shareholders equity stands extinguished in terms of the approved resolution plan, even if such Extinguishment extends to non-promoter shareholding.'

12. Objector

    Mr. Deepak B. Raheja and Mrs. Anita D. Raheja (Suspended Board)

    Objector class

    ex_promoter

    Ground

    (k) Judicial recognition of post-RFRP claim admissions and erroneous claim determination

    Ia number

    IA (IBC)/2516/2026

    Disposition

    dismissed

    Effect on approval

    Rejected at para 90: Regulation 13(1B) permits admission of claims received up to seven days before the date of voting on the resolution plan, and those claims were admitted after condonation of delay by this Tribunal under Regulation 13(1C).

13. Objector

    Mr. Deepak B. Raheja and Mrs. Anita D. Raheja (Suspended Board)

    Objector class

    ex_promoter

    Ground

    (l) Failure to verify perfection of security interests and compliance with SARFAESI and companies act requirements

    Ia number

    IA (IBC)/2516/2026

    Disposition

    dismissed

    Effect on approval

    Rejected at para 71 — not a relevant consideration as all creditors, secured and unsecured, are being paid in full.

14. Objector

    Mr. Deepak B. Raheja and Mrs. Anita D. Raheja (Suspended Board)

    Objector class

    ex_promoter

    Ground

    (m) Unverified compounded interest, prohibited penal interest and continuing debt escalation vitiating claim verification

    Ia number

    IA (IBC)/2516/2026

    Disposition

    dismissed

    Effect on approval

    Rejected at paras 72-73 and 81 — the review points of BK Ramadhyani & Co. LLP on interest rate, compounding and rate changes were dealt with in the order dated 08.07.2025; Mr. Arun Kumar v. Ms. Sripriya Kumar holds interest/penal interest is contractual and outside the IBC's domain.

15. Objector

    Mr. Deepak B. Raheja and Mrs. Anita D. Raheja (Suspended Board)

    Objector class

    ex_promoter

    Ground

    (n) Defective claim verification and uncrystallized debt structure

    Ia number

    IA (IBC)/2516/2026

    Disposition

    dismissed

    Effect on approval

    Rejected at para 73.

16. Objector

    Mr. Deepak B. Raheja and Mrs. Anita D. Raheja (Suspended Board)

    Objector class

    ex_promoter

    Ground

    (o) Absence of transparency in debt computation and reconciliation

    Ia number

    IA (IBC)/2516/2026

    Disposition

    dismissed

    Effect on approval

    Rejected at para 73 — the Mukund M. Chitale & Co. report was provided to the objectors' reviewer and contained the relevant and necessary information to determine and quantify the Omkara claim.

17. Objector

    Mr. Deepak B. Raheja and Mrs. Anita D. Raheja (Suspended Board)

    Objector class

    ex_promoter

    Ground

    (p) Personal use of corporate debtor's assets by the resolution professional

    Ia number

    IA (IBC)/2516/2026

    Disposition

    dismissed

    Effect on approval

    Dismissed with the IA; not separately adjudicated in a dedicated paragraph.

18. Objector

    Mr. Deepak B. Raheja and Mrs. Anita D. Raheja (Suspended Board)

    Objector class

    ex_promoter

    Ground

    (q) Failure to address objections raised by the suspended board

    Ia number

    IA (IBC)/2516/2026

    Disposition

    dismissed

    Effect on approval

    Rejected at para 52 — the objectors had notice of the CoC meetings and could have raised these issues earlier before this Tribunal.

19. Objector

    Mr. Deepak B. Raheja and Mrs. Anita D. Raheja (Suspended Board)

    Objector class

    ex_promoter

    Ground

    (r) Inclusion of disputed and unverified CIRP costs

    Ia number

    IA (IBC)/2516/2026

    Disposition

    dismissed

    Effect on approval

    Para 91: any unverified or disputed element of CIRP cost not approved by the CoC 'shall have to be excluded from the consideration thereof under the resolution plan'; however 'this aspect does not merit consideration in the present case as the unapproved CIRP cost falls outside the consideration of the resolution plan and also does not constitute a material irregularity.'

20. Objector

    Mr. Deepak B. Raheja and Mrs. Anita D. Raheja (Suspended Board)

    Objector class

    ex_promoter

    Ground

    (s) Creditor-centric evaluation matrix and tie breaker criteria

    Ia number

    IA (IBC)/2516/2026

    Disposition

    dismissed

    Effect on approval

    Rejected at para 92: 'The evaluation matrix and tie breaker criteria were approved by the CoC in its commercial wisdom, accordingly this tribunal can not interfere in that decision.'

21. Objector

    Mr. Deepak B. Raheja and Mrs. Anita D. Raheja (Suspended Board)

    Objector class

    ex_promoter

    Ground

    (t) Approval of the resolution plan despite pending civil appeals before the Hon'ble Supreme Court concerning the very debt and default forming the basis of the CIRP

    Ia number

    IA (IBC)/2516/2026

    Disposition

    dismissed

    Effect on approval

    Rejected at para 70: the Supreme Court has not stayed the CIRP, 'accordingly there was no bar in continuing with the CIRP process culminating into approval of the resolution plan by CoC'.

22. Objector

    Mr. Deepak B. Raheja and Mrs. Anita D. Raheja (Suspended Board)

    Objector class

    ex_promoter

    Ground

    (u) Defective Constitution of the Committee of Creditors

    Ia number

    IA (IBC)/2516/2026

    Disposition

    dismissed

    Effect on approval

    Rejected at paras 74-78.

23. Objector

    Mr. Deepak B. Raheja and Mrs. Anita D. Raheja (Suspended Board)

    Objector class

    ex_promoter

    Ground

    (v) Excess Recovery and Extinguishment of Shareholder Interest

    Ia number

    IA (IBC)/2516/2026

    Disposition

    partly_allowed

    Effect on approval

    Excess recovery upheld as within the CoC's commercial wisdom (paras 80-88); extinguishment upheld (para 92); but the bench clarified that residual resolution money after full settlement of creditors including interest must accrue to the shareholders (para 89) and directed an updated Form H to that effect (para 101).

24. Objector

    This Tribunal (bench-initiated observation during the course of proceedings)

    Objector class

    bench_itself

    Ground

    The proposed resolution plan contemplated exclusion of all related party creditors' claims and shareholders, while the application of the resolution money before the bench demonstrated that there would be a surplus available after settlement of the admitted claims of the unrelated creditors (para 79)

    Disposition

    clarification_ordered

    Effect on approval

    The Resolution Professional submitted that an appropriate addendum has to be placed on record so as to include related party creditors' claims in the proposed settlement and that they shall be paid 100% of their admitted claims (paras 79, 84). Para 101 directs an updated Form H with an SRA affidavit and CoC ratification to incorporate these changes.

25. Objector

    This Tribunal (bench-initiated inquiry)

    Objector class

    bench_itself

    Ground

    Whether the resolution plan meets the requirement of Section 30(4) in so far as it requires the CoC to consider the proposed manner of distribution after taking into account the order of priority of creditors laid down in Section 53(1) of the IBC (para 85)

    Disposition

    clarification_ordered

    Effect on approval

    Resolved in favour of the plan at para 89 on the strength of Essar Steel and India Resurgence ARC: settlement of admitted claims as on the insolvency commencement date, including interest accrued thereafter, is compliant with s.30(4) if the CoC so decides, subject to the clarification that residual resolution money must accrue to the shareholders.

1. Date

   2026-06-15

   What

   The Resolution Professional filed an affidavit dated 15.06.2026 stating that, pursuant to the order dated 02.06.2026 passed by this Tribunal in IA (I.B.C)/2098(MB)2026 condoning the delay and directing inclusion of claims aggregating to Rs. 65,48,402/- of certain Operational Creditors and an Employee, the revised List of Creditors was placed before and taken on record by the CoC in its 17th meeting held on 09.06.2026; the RP consequently revised and updated the Form-H filed with the Plan Approval Application and placed the Revised Form-H on record (para 41).

2. What

   During the course of proceedings the Tribunal observed that the plan excluded all related party creditors' claims and shareholders although a surplus would be available after settlement of unrelated creditors; the RP submitted that an appropriate addendum would be placed on record to include related party creditors' claims, to be paid 100% of their admitted claims (paras 79, 84).

3. What

   The Tribunal inquired whether the resolution plan meets the requirement of Section 30(4) so far as it requires the CoC to consider the proposed manner of distribution after taking into account the order of priority in Section 53(1) of the IBC (para 85).

4. What

   The Tribunal required the Resolution Professional to explain the delay, the plan-approval application not having been filed within 180 days of initiation, 134 days having been taken beyond 180 days; the RP explained the delay arose from receipt of a large number of EOIs and multiple Resolution Plans requiring detailed evaluation, negotiations, compliance verification and consideration of revised Resolution Plans (para 94).

Applications

1. Sections

   Sections 43, 45, 50 and 66 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016

   Status

   pending

   Proceeds treatment

   Para 92: 'Since the creditors are being fully paid in the present case, unadjudicated avoidance recoveries can not be allocated to them. Accordingly, those recoveries will accrue to the shareholders.' The order records at para 9 that M/s Nangia & Co. LLP was appointed as Transaction Auditor with CoC approval to examine preferential, undervalued, extortionate credit and fraudulent transactions under Sections 43, 45, 50 and 66; the order refers to the recoveries as 'unadjudicated'/'un adjudicated' but prints no IA number, no amount and no findings.

Conditions imposed

1. Condition

   The applicant shall file updated FORM H along with an affidavit from SRA and ratification of CoC to the effect to incorporate the changes in the financial proposal arising from admission of claims of the creditors/related parties and allocation of residual resolution money to the shareholders subsequent to approval of resolution plan by CoC (para 101).

   Addressed to

   Resolution Professional/Applicant, with an affidavit from the SRA and ratification by the CoC

2. Condition

   Related party creditors are to be included in the proposed settlement and paid 100% of their admitted claims, by way of an appropriate addendum to be placed on record (paras 79, 84).

   Addressed to

   Resolution Professional / CoC / SRA

3. Condition

   The residual resolution money, if any, after settlement of the creditors' claims including interest thereon till the date of payment, has to accrue to the shareholders (para 89).

   Addressed to

   Resolution Professional / SRA / Monitoring arrangement

4. Condition

   Unadjudicated avoidance recoveries cannot be allocated to the creditors, who are being fully paid; those recoveries will accrue to the shareholders (para 92).

   Addressed to

   Resolution Professional / SRA

5. Condition

   Any unverified or disputed element of CIRP cost that is not approved by the CoC shall have to be excluded from the consideration thereof under the resolution plan (para 91).

   Addressed to

   Resolution Professional / CoC

6. Condition

   The Memorandum of Association and Articles of Association shall be amended and filed with the Registrar of Companies, Mumbai, Maharashtra for information and record (para 101(iii)).

   Addressed to

   Resolution Applicant / Corporate Debtor

7. Condition

   The Applicant shall supervise the implementation of the Resolution Plan and file status of its implementation before this Authority from time to time, preferably every quarter (para 101(vi)).

   Addressed to

   Resolution Professional/Applicant

Approval conditional on external order

No

Appellate history

First Admission Order dated 09.01.2024 admitted the Corporate Debtor into CIRP and appointed Mr. Jayesh Sanghrajka as IRP. The suspended director filed Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 165 of 2024 before the NCLAT; by interim order dated 24.01.2024 the NCLAT stayed the constitution of the CoC, so the CIRP could not progress during the pendency of the appeal; by judgment dated 08.01.2025 the NCLAT allowed the appeal, set aside the earlier admission order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. This Tribunal, after fresh hearing, passed the Second Admission Order dated 08.07.2025 admitting the Section 7 Petition and re-appointing Mr. Jayesh Sanghrajka as IRP. The Second Admission Order was challenged by the promoters in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1040 of 2025, dismissed by order dated 19.08.2025; the promoters' further appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court 'is stated to be pending' with no stay granted on the CIRP (paras 4-6, 10, 70). The order also records that the issue relating to the Assignment Agreement (assignment dated 27.12.2022) was decided by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in favour of the Financial Creditor, and the NCLAT observed that 'no fault can be found in the assignment at this stage' (para 69).

Precedents cited

1. Case

   Santosh R. Shetty v. Rajan Deshraj Agarwal and Ors., (2026) ibclaw.in 880 NCLAT

   Proposition

   The Code creates a tiered system of remedies at defined stages; a party with full knowledge of the CIRP cannot remain silent throughout and then file an isolated application at the final stage seeking to nullify the entire CIRP (para 102 quoted).

2. Case

   K. Sashidhar vs. Indian Overseas Bank & Ors., Civil Appeal No.10673 of 2018 (decided 05.02.2019)

   Proposition

   The commercial decision of the CoC is not justiciable; the Adjudicating Authority's role under s.31 is 'no more and no less' than satisfying itself that the plan meets s.30(2); limited grounds of appeal under s.61(3).

3. Case

   M.K. Rajagopalan v. Dr. Periasamy Palani Gounder & Anr., (2023) ibclaw.in 60 SC

   Proposition

   Commercial wisdom of the CoC is a well-considered decision that comes into existence only when all relevant information is before the CoC and duly deliberated upon; every aspect of the plan, particularly its financial layout, must be before the CoC (paras 47, 47.1).

4. Case

   Dharampal Premchand Ltd. v. Jitendra Bhandari and Ors., (2026) ibclaw.in 706 NCLAT

   Proposition

   Interference with an approved plan only on patent illegality, material irregularity, violation of mandatory provisions or perversity; mere dissatisfaction with the outcome cannot reopen a completed insolvency process (para 50).

5. Case

   Vallal RCK vs. M/S. Siva Industries and Holdings Ltd. and Ors.

   Proposition

   Minimal judicial interference by NCLT and NCLAT in the IBC framework, quoting Arun Kumar Jagatramka v. Jindal Steel and Power Limited and Another (para 95).

6. Case

   Arun Kumar Jagatramka v. Jindal Steel and Power Limited and Another

   Proposition

   Note of caution against judicial interference in the framework envisaged under the IBC (quoted within Vallal RCK).

7. Case

   Lamba Exports Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dhir Global Industries Pvt. Ltd., and Others, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 459

   Proposition

   Relied on by the objectors; reiterates that the commercial wisdom of the CoC can be challenged only on a legally sustainable foundation such as statutory illegality, jurisdictional infirmity or shortcoming under s.30(2) read with Regulations 37 and 38.

8. Case

   Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority Vs. Prabhjit Sigh Soni and Another, 2024 6 Supreme Court Cases 767

   Proposition

   Relied on by the objectors; same proposition as Lamba Exports — commercial wisdom challengeable only on a legally sustainable foundation.

9. Case

   Mr Shailendra Ajmera Vs. Committee of Creditors of Nirmal Lifestyle (Kalyan) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. {IA-88/MB/2024 in CP(IB)-1337/MB/2020}

   Proposition

   Co-ordinate Bench decision relied on by the objectors; held misplaced because the issue there was the grant of several relaxations from the RFRP to the SRA without extending the same benefit to all PRAs (para 67).

10. Case

    Phoenix ARC Private Limited vs. Spade Financial Services Limited & Ors., (2021) 3 Supreme Court Cases 475

    Proposition

    Related-party status is to be examined strictly in terms of s.5(24) of the IBC; the IBC definition is commutative and exhaustive for IBC purposes (paras 59, 62).

11. Case

    EPC Constructions India Limited vs. Matix Fertilisers and Chemicals Limited, (2026) 2 Supreme Court Cases 272

    Proposition

    Treatment in the accounts due to prescription of accounting standards is not determinative of the nature of the relationship between the parties.

12. Case

    Sandeep Gupta v. JM Financial Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. & Anr., (2024) ibclaw.in 16 NCLAT

    Proposition

    Relied on by the objectors; all creditors including financial creditors are entitled only to 100% of their admitted debt (para 34) — distinguished by the bench as rendered in the context of a s.12A proposal.

13. Case

    Mr. Arun Kumar Vs. Ms. Sripriya Kumar and Others, (2023) ibclaw.in 503 NCLAT

    Proposition

    The Code cannot interfere with vested contractual rights as to interest or penal interest; s.14 imposes no restriction on charging interest till the amount is paid; quantum payable to creditors is within the CoC's commercial wisdom (paras 23, 24).

14. Case

    Rosario D'Souza v. Union Bank of India and Anr., (2024) ibclaw.in 122 NCLAT

    Proposition

    'The financial debt always has the time value and such time values continues till the debts are paid' (para 61); NCLAT declined to interfere with CoC's approval of payments over and above admitted claims.

15. Case

    Manav Investments and Trading Co. Ltd. Vs. Pratim Bayal and Others, 2024 SC OnLine NCLAT 42

    Proposition

    Objection by a related-party creditor that distribution not in accordance with vote share violates s.53 read with s.30(2)(b) was rejected; a related party is not entitled to any distribution.

16. Case

    Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Limited Vs. Satish Kumar Gupta & Others, 2020 8 Supreme Court Cases 531

    Proposition

    The s.53 order of priority is not engrafted in s.30(2)(b); s.53(1) is referred to only so that a certain minimum figure is paid; Explanation 1 to s.30(2) leaves no residual equity jurisdiction in the Adjudicating Authority or Appellate Tribunal (paras 128, 129).

17. Case

    India Resurgence ARC Private Limited Vs. Amit Metaliks Limited and Anr., 2021 19 Supreme Court Cases 672

    Proposition

    The amendment to s.30(4) only amplified the considerations for the CoC; the business decision does not call for interference unless similarly situated creditors of a class are denied fair and equitable treatment (para 15).

18. Case

    Ghanshyam Mishra and Sons Private Limited v/s. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited, [2021] 13 S.C.R. 737

    Proposition

    On approval under s.31(1), claims stand frozen and bind all stakeholders including governments; claims not part of the plan stand extinguished; the 2019 amendment to s.31 is clarificatory and declaratory; all statutory dues not part of the plan stand extinguished (para 95(i)-(iii)).

19. Case

    Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai vs. Abhilash Lal and Ors., (2019) ibclaw.in 480 NCLAT

    Proposition

    Cited with Ghanshyam Mishra as governing the reliefs, concessions and waivers set out in the Resolution Plan (para 98).

Judicial observations

1. However, it is clarified the residual resolution money, if any, after settlement of the creditors claim in the aforesaid manner has to accrue to the shareholders in view of full settlement of claims of creditors including the interest thereon till the date of payment. (p.41, para 89)
2. Since the creditors are being fully paid in the present case, unadjudicated avoidance recoveries can not be allocated to them. Accordingly, those recoveries will accrue to the shareholders. In accordance with the settled law, the shareholders equity stands extinguished in terms of the approved resolution plan, even if such Extinguishment extends to non-promoter shareholding. (p.42, para 92)
3. Further, the objectors being suspended board members had the notice of the CoC meetings, accordingly they could not allege carrying of the CIRP process in the manner contrary to the law at this stage, while they could have raised some of the issues, raised now, earlier before this tribunal in relation thereto. (p.26, para 52)

Directives to third parties

Registrar of Companies: shall waive the additional fees, if any, payable on filings relating to reduction in capital and issuance of fresh capital (para 98(a)); shall update the records and reflect the Corporate Debtor as 'Active' upon filing of pending returns/forms after payment of normal fees (not additional fee), and if the e-filing portal does not permit such filing shall accept the forms/returns in physical format and manage to upload them by back-end (para 98(i)). All authorities: no orders levying any tax, demand or penalty from the Corporate Debtor in relation to the period up to approval shall be passed, and such demand, if created, shall not be enforceable as having extinguished (para 98(f)); no fine or penalty shall be imposed for non-compliances till the date of approval (para 98(h)); continuance of approvals shall not be refused on account of extinguishment of dues under IBC and renewal shall not be denied on account of past insolvency (para 98(d)); authorities 'shall not withhold the approval/consent/extension for the reason of insolvency of the Corporate Debtor or extinguishment of their dues up to approval of Resolution plan' (para 101(iv)). Income Tax Department and concerned tax authorities: at liberty to examine the tax implications of the accounting treatment under ss.2(24), 28 and 56 of the Income Tax Act read with GAAR, the carry forward of losses and unabsorbed depreciation, the applicability of s.115JB, and the carry forward of input tax credit under Indirect Tax (paras 98(b), 98(g)).

1. Case number

   IA (IBC)/2516/2026

   Outcome line

   The IA (IBC)/2516/2026 objecting the approval of the resolution plan is hereby dismissed. (para 101)

Companies named in the order

1. Gstaad Hotels Private Limited

Order date

2026-09-03