S.No.

IN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL

HYDERABAD BENCH – 1
VC AND PHYSCIAL (HYBRID) MODE
ATTENDANCE CUM ORDER SHEET OF THE HEARING HELD ON
12-06-2025 AT 12:15 PM

CP (IB) No. 99/7/HDB/2022

AND
IA (IBC) 543/2024 & IA (IBC) (Plan) 13/2024 in
CP (IB) No. 99/7/HDB/2022
u/s. 7 of IBC, 2016

IN THE MATTER OF:

M/s. RK Distilleries (P) Ltd. …Financial Creditor

AND

M/s. Nadhi Bio Products Pvt Ltd …Corporate Debtor

C O R A M:-
SH. RAMMURTI KUSHAWAHA, HON’BLE MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
SH. CHARAN SINGH, HON’BLE MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

ORDER
IA (IBC) 543/2024
Learned Counsel Mr. Ravi Kumar for Applicant present through video
conference.
Order pronounced, in the result this application is dismissed with no costs.

IA (IBC) (Plan) 13/2024

Mr. Srinivas Rao Ravinuthala, Resolution Professional present through video
conference. Learned PCS Mr. Shaik Gouse for Resolution Professional present
through video conference.
Order pronounced. In the result, this application is allowed, subject to the
directions mentioned in the order.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER (T) MEMBER (J)

siva
 IN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL,
HYDERABAD BENCH-I, HYDERABAD

I.A. (IBC) NO. 543 OF 2024

IN
C.P. (IB) NO. 99/7/HDB/2022
Filed under Section 60(5) of The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 read with Rule 11,
13 & 32 of The National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016

IN THE MATTER OF
Kesari Nandan Traders,
6-3-456/A/20, 4th Floor, Flat No.401,
Maruthi Grandeur, Dwarakapuri Colony,
Punjagutta, Hyderabad – 500073.
Rep. by its Proprietor
Mr. Neha Lahoti.
…Applicant
VERSUS
Mr. Sreenivasa Rao Ravinuthala
Resolution Professional of M/s. Nadhi Bio Products Private Limited

…Respondent

Date of Order:12.06.2025

CORAM
SH. RAMMURTI KUSHAWAHA, HON’BLE MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
SH. CHARAN SINGH, HON’BLE MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

Appearance
For Applicant : Mr. Ravi Kumar, Counsel
For Respondent : Mr. Shaik Ghouse, PCS along with Respondent-in-person

PER: BENCH
ORDER
1. This application was filed by the Applicant (a proprietorship firm) under

Section 60(5) of ‘The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016’ (for short
 I.A. (IBC) NO. 543/2024 IN C.P. (IB) NO. 99/7/HDB/2022
Kesari Nandan Traders vs RP of Nadhi Bio Products Pvt Ltd
Date: 12.06.2025

‘IBC’) read with Rule 11, 13 & 32 of The National Company Law Tribunal

Rules, 2016 against the Resolution Professional (for short referred as RP)

of ‘M/s. Nadhi Bio Products Private Limited’ (hereinafter referred as

‘Corporate Debtor’) seeking to direct the RP to admit the claim of

Applicant for an amount of Rs.7,29,96,779/.

2. Earlier, the present Application was dismissed by this Adjudicating

Authority by an order dated 07.05.2024 as follows:

“Orders pronounced. The communication of the Resolution Professional as

regards to the admission of the claim of the applicant/ operational creditor, to
the extent that is found in the balance sheet of the Corporate Debtor does not
warrant our interference under the facts and circumstances of this case.
Hence, this application is rejected and disposed of. No costs.”

3. Assailing this order, the Applicant approached the Hon’ble NCLAT,

Chennai Bench vide Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 257/2024. By an

order dated 25.04.2025, the said appeal was disposed off by the Hon’ble

NCLAT by directing this Adjudicating Authority to decide the application

on merits and also by considering the rival contentions as follows:

“…… The matter is remitted back to the Learned NCLT, Hyderabad Bench, to
reconsider the Application IA(IBC) 543/2024 on its merit by considering the
contention raised by the Appellant in support of his case as pleaded in its
application filed before the Tribunal. The Learned Tribunal is expected to hear
the parties and only after considering the rival contentions pass a reasoned
order on the Application.
Consequently, the Appeal is allowed. The Impugned Order dated
07.05.2024 is quashed. The matter is remitted back to the Learned Tribunal to
decide the IA(IBC) 543/2024 afresh.”

2
 I.A. (IBC) NO. 543/2024 IN C.P. (IB) NO. 99/7/HDB/2022
Kesari Nandan Traders vs RP of Nadhi Bio Products Pvt Ltd
Date: 12.06.2025

4. Accordingly, the matter was heard and an opportunity was also granted to

the Respondent to file additional counter. Also, the parties filed the

respective written submissions in support of their case.

5. The Corporate Debtor was put into ‘Corporate Insolvency Resolution

Process’ (for short referred as ‘CIRP’) by an order of this Adjudicating

Authority dated 26.05.2023 in C.P. (IB) No. 99/7/HDB/2022 and Mr.

Ramakanth Malapalli was appointed as the ‘Interim Resolution

Professional’ (for short ‘IRP’) of the Corporate Debtor. As part of the

duties, the IRP issued a Public Announcement in Form-A on 05.06.2023,

notifying 18.06.2023 as the deadline for submitting claims.

6. Subsequently, by an order dated 14.09.2023 in I.A. (IBC) No. 1300 of

2023, Truue IPE Private Limited, an Insolvency Entity represented by Mr.

Chandra Prakash Jain was appointed as the Resolution Professional of

Corporate Debtor (for short RP). During the course of CIRP, by an order

dated 29.04.2024 in I.A. (IBC) No. 745 of 2024, Mr. Sreenivasa Rao

Ravinuthala was appointed as the RP of the Corporate Debtor.

7. At present, as part of the CIRP proceedings, the Resolution Plan for the

Corporate Debtor is pending for approval of this Adjudicating Authority.

CASE OF THE APPLICANT

8. It was submitted that out of business acquaintances, the Corporate Debtor

entered into a ‘Memorandum of Understanding dated 27.06.2019’ (MOU-

3
 I.A. (IBC) NO. 543/2024 IN C.P. (IB) NO. 99/7/HDB/2022
Kesari Nandan Traders vs RP of Nadhi Bio Products Pvt Ltd
Date: 12.06.2025

I) as per which the Corporate Debtor has to supply 800 metric tonnes of

‘dried distiller grains’ (DDGs) to the Applicant for 2 months for which the

Applicant has to make a total advance payment of Rs.2,00,00,000/-

(Rs.25,000 per ton). That the applicant has made a payment of

Rs.1,60,00,000/- by way of cheque/online transfers on 28.06.2019 and

remaining amount of Rs.40,00,000/- by way of cash, but the Corporate

Debtor failed to supply DDGs. That as per the default clause of MOU-I,

the failure of Corporate Debtor to supply DDGs result in a penalty of

Rs.7,00,000/- per month to be paid to the applicant till the refund of

advance payment is done.

9. It was further submitted that during the time of MOU-I, the Corporate

Debtor issued four (4) cheques for an amount of Rs.50,00,000 each vide

cheque no. 898160, 898161, 898162 and 898163 drawn on State Bank of

India (SBI), IFB Branch, Somajiguda, Hyderabad as a surety to the

advance payment made by the applicant. Additionally, two (2) cheques

vide cheque no.898164, 898165 each for an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- was

issued as part of surety for the compensation to be made in accordance with

the default clause of MOU.

10.Similarly, a Memorandum of Understanding dated 01.08.2021 (MOU-II)

was entered as per which the Corporate Debtor was to supply 100 tons of

DDGs per month to the applicant at a rate of Rs.55 per kg for which total

4
 I.A. (IBC) NO. 543/2024 IN C.P. (IB) NO. 99/7/HDB/2022
Kesari Nandan Traders vs RP of Nadhi Bio Products Pvt Ltd
Date: 12.06.2025

advance payment of Rs.55,00,000 was made to Corporate Debtor, but the

Corporate Debtor failed to supply DDGs. As per the default clause, the

Corporate Debtor has to pay a penalty of Rs.40 per kg towards the non-

supplied quantity of DDGs. If no supply is made by 31.08.2021, the entire

advance payment was to be refunded to the Applicant along with the

penalty by 01.09.2021.

11.It was submitted that the Corporate Debtor failed to supply DDGs and also

to pay the penalties as per MOU-I and MOU-II. The applicant was

persuading the Corporate Debtor for refund in accordance with the MOU-

I and MOU-II, but that the Corporate Debtor failed to make these

payments. Pursuant to the admission of Corporate Debtor into CIRP, the

Applicant filed a claim on 19.07.2023 for an amount of Rs.7,29,96,779/-

(Principal Amount of Rs.3,70,70,742 + Interest of Rs.3,59,26,037) which

was accepted by the Respondent/RP. That after elapse of 5 months, the

Respondent/RP issued a communication to the Applicant on 14.12.2023

stating that as per the audited financials of the Corporate Debtor as on

31.03.2022, only Rs.80,05,817/- is payable and the RP sought documents

in support of the interest calculation and the remaining amount of the claim.

12.It was submitted that the Applicant submitted all the documents but the RP

admitted the claim to the extent of Rs.80,05,817 only. It was submitted that

the failure of the Corporate Debtor in maintaining the books of accounts

5
 I.A. (IBC) NO. 543/2024 IN C.P. (IB) NO. 99/7/HDB/2022
Kesari Nandan Traders vs RP of Nadhi Bio Products Pvt Ltd
Date: 12.06.2025

will not affect the legal claim of the applicant. It was submitted that the RP

exceeded the role of administrator and acted as adjudicator in respect of

the claim of the Applicant. In the above factual background, the Applicant

sought a direction to the RP to admit the claim as submitted by the

Applicant.

REPLY OF THE RESPONDENT/RP

13. It was submitted that in the documents submitted by the Applicant,

discrepancies were found between the ledger, working computation and

account statement, with no clarity on the opening balance or payment

details and hence, the claim for the remaining amount was rejected. It was

submitted that the Applicant sent additional documents vide an email dated

18.12.2023 which were verified with the books of Corporate Debtor and

was communicated to the Applicant on 03.01.2024 that no loan amount is

outstanding and the claim of Rs. 80,05,817 was admitted as an Operational

Creditor. The Resolution Professional again requested supporting

documents, including a balance confirmation from the Corporate Debtor,

audited financials, and a CA certificate to substantiate the claim.

14.Pursuant to this communication, the Applicant sent an email dated

09.01.2024 explaining the claim breakdown along with CA certificate and

audited financial statement for Financial Year (FY) 2022–2023. That the

CA certificate covered only Rs.2,75,70,742, excluding the remaining claim

6
 I.A. (IBC) NO. 543/2024 IN C.P. (IB) NO. 99/7/HDB/2022
Kesari Nandan Traders vs RP of Nadhi Bio Products Pvt Ltd
Date: 12.06.2025

amount. Subsequently, on 23.01.2024, the Resolution Professional

communicated that as per the records of the Corporate Debtor, only

Rs.80,05,817/- is payable. Additionally, the Applicant failed to submit key

supporting documents like balance confirmation or audited financial

statements since FY 2020–2021. Due to the absence of the said documents,

the Resolution Professional could not admit the remaining claim of the

Applicant. That despite repeated requests, the Applicant failed to provide

documents to support the remaining claim amount.

15. It is stated that in reference to the above judgement, the Resolution

Professional can only verify claims supported by the proper

documentation. The Resolution Professional has admitted the claim

amount based on the books of accounts of the Corporate Debtor. In

addition, the CA certificate submitted by the Applicant reflects

Rs.2,75,70,742/- as per the Applicant’s ledger, but no evidence was

provided to support the remaining claim amount. Further, the MoU’s

submitted by the Applicant do not confirm the Corporate Debtor's liability

for the full claimed amount of Rs.7,29,96,779/-.

16.Further, the Applicant has annexed irrelevant documents to the present

Application, including an account statement of an unrelated party i.e.,

Industrial Road Transport, from 01.07.2019 to 05.10.2019, seemingly to

mislead this Tribunal. Moreover, the Application lacks proper pagination,

7
 I.A. (IBC) NO. 543/2024 IN C.P. (IB) NO. 99/7/HDB/2022
Kesari Nandan Traders vs RP of Nadhi Bio Products Pvt Ltd
Date: 12.06.2025

an index, and is filed in an incorrect format. Accordingly, the present

application lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable.

ADDITIONAL REPLY OF THE RESPONDENT/RP

17.It is stated that as per the claim form submitted by the Applicant for Rs.

7,29,96,779/-, the claim pertains to two categories of transactions. The first

relates to the supply of coal to the Corporate Debtor, for which the

Resolution Professional has admitted Rs.80,05,817/-, based on the books

of accounts and audited financial statements of the Corporate Debtor. The

second claim is based on an MoU dated 27.06.2019, under which the

Applicant advanced Rs.1.60 crore by bank transfer and Rs.40 lakh in cash

to the Corporate Debtor for the supply of goods.

18.It is stated that as per the records of Corporate Debtor, supplies worth

Rs.1,60,00,000/- were made to the Applicant in FY 2019–20. The

Applicant also claimed to have paid Rs.40,00,000/- in cash but has

provided no evidence or documentation to support this to the Corporate

Debtor. Additionally, as per second MoU dated 01.08.2021, the Applicant

had paid an advance of Rs. 55,00,000/- to the Corporate Debtor but has not

submitted any documentary evidence to support this.

19. It was submitted that in respect of the claim for interest, there was no

contract/agreement between the Corporate Debtor and Applicant and

hence, there cannot be any claim for interest.

8
 I.A. (IBC) NO. 543/2024 IN C.P. (IB) NO. 99/7/HDB/2022
Kesari Nandan Traders vs RP of Nadhi Bio Products Pvt Ltd
Date: 12.06.2025

POINT

20. In the above backdrop, the point that arises for the consideration of this

Adjudicating Authority is:

Whether the RP can be directed to admit the total claim of the

Applicant for Rs. 7,29,96,779/-?

21. We have heard the Ld. Counsel Mr. V. Ravi Kumar for the Applicant, PCS

Mr. Shaik Ghouse for the Respondent/RP, perused the record and

submissions.

SUBMISSIONS

22. Ld. Counsel Mr. V. Ravi Kumar submits that the Respondent/RP has

arbitrarily rejected the claim of the Applicant for Rs. 7,29,96,779/-. That

the RP exceeded the scope of duties and assumed an adjudicatory role. Ld.

Counsel further submits that the RP rejected the claim of Applicant stating

that the documents submitted by the Applicant were not found in the

records of the Corporate Debtor and by this, the RP refused to go beyond

the books of accounts contravening the principle of uberrima fides (utmost

good faith). Ld. Counsel submits that it is a settled that mere absence of

records in the books of accounts of Corporate Debtor cannot be a valid

ground to reject the claim of the Applicant.

23. Relying on Swiss Ribbons vs. Union of India and CoC of Essar Steel

India Limited vs. Satish Kumar Gupta & Ors., it was submitted that the

9
 I.A. (IBC) NO. 543/2024 IN C.P. (IB) NO. 99/7/HDB/2022
Kesari Nandan Traders vs RP of Nadhi Bio Products Pvt Ltd
Date: 12.06.2025

RP cannot decide on the merits of the case and can only verify the

documents which are provided by the Applicant. Further reliance was also

placed on Arcelor Mittal India Private Limited vs. Satish Kumar

Gupta and submitted that the functions of RP are to collect, collate and

admit the claims of creditors and his role is administrative, not

adjudicatory.

24. Ld. Counsel for the Applicant submits that the RP in the additional counter

filed a fabricated ledger sheet showing that goods were supplied amounting

to Rs.1,60,00,000/- but no invoice/delivery note were annexed along with

the ledger evidencing the said supply, thereby making it clear that

Corporate Debtor owes Rs.2,00,00,000/- under MOU-I.

25. Ld. Counsel for Applicant further submits that contractual obligations

between the Applicant and Corporate Debtor were entered into long before

the commencement of CIRP and are binding on the Corporate Debtor. In

this regard, reliance was placed on I.A. No. 1229/CHE/2021 in

IBA/1423/2019 dated 11.03.2022 wherein the Ld. NCLT, Chennai Bench

observed as follows:

“The contractual obligations that had to be legally complied with by the entity
in respect of a duty cast under a contract entered into long prior to the
commencement of the Insolvency Resolution process were complied with. The
Learned Counsel for the 2nd and 3rd Respondent had admitted that there was no
intentional act on the part of the said respondents to take away the property
from the purview of the present proceedings.”

10
 I.A. (IBC) NO. 543/2024 IN C.P. (IB) NO. 99/7/HDB/2022
Kesari Nandan Traders vs RP of Nadhi Bio Products Pvt Ltd
Date: 12.06.2025

26.On the other hand, PCS Mr. Shaik Ghouse submits that the Applicant did

not provide valid and relevant documents to substantiate the claim of Rs.

7,29,96,779/-. That even after email communications asking for the

supporting documents viz., financials, balance sheet, certified books, the

Applicant failed to provide these to substantiate the same. In this context,

reliance was placed on the ruling of Ld. NCLT, Mumbai Bench in

Engineering Mazdoor Parisad Dewas vs. Teena Saraswat Pandey, I.A.

No. 1300/2022 in C.P. (IB) No. 3703/MB/2019 [(2023) ibclaw.in 333

NCLT], wherein it was held as:

“Having heard the Counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view, that
the IA is without any merit. It has been claimed that there were outstanding dues
of workmen amounting to Rs. 26.87 Crores. However, the Applicant has not
substantiated this part of the claim by way of any supporting document. On the
contrary, it is the definite case of the Respondent/Resolution Professional that
after verifying the records of the Corporate Debtor a sum of Rs. 96,83,497/-
was found to be due towards the outstanding dues of the workmen and the
erstwhile RP admitted the claim to that extent. Without any substantive record,
it cannot be said that workmen dues of Rs. 26.87 Crores were outstanding which
has been left out. It has also been pointed by the Counsel for the
Respondent/Resolution Professional that the Corporate Debtor had declared a
lay off in the year 2016 following which, only a handful employees were left in
the Corporate Debtor. Therefore, it cannot be said that claims of Rs. 26.87
Crores has not been considered and have been wrongly rejected by the
Respondent/RP.”

27.Further, Ld. PCS submits that the Applicant did not provide any agreement

or contract for claiming the interest on the outstanding dues and hence,

interest cannot be claimed as a right unless agreed upon. In this regard,

reliance was placed on Rishab Infra vs. Sadbhav Engineering Limited,

11
 I.A. (IBC) NO. 543/2024 IN C.P. (IB) NO. 99/7/HDB/2022
Kesari Nandan Traders vs RP of Nadhi Bio Products Pvt Ltd
Date: 12.06.2025

Company Appeal (AT) (INS) No. 1881/2024, Hon’ble NCLAT wherein it

was held as follows:

“We are of the view that invoices which have been sent by the Operational
Creditor containing the term of interest cannot be operated against the
Corporate Debtor unless there us an agreement for interest or any other
document showing that the Corporate Debtor has accepted the obligation for
the interest.”

ANALYSIS & FINDINGS

28. A perusal of the bank statements as filed by the Applicant shows that an

amount of Rs.1,20,00,000 and Rs. 40,00,000 (total Rs.1,60,00,000) was

transferred to the Corporate Debtor on 28.06.2019 by way of Cheque No.

606490 and 606491 respectively. The same was also

recorded/acknowledged in the ledger records of Corporate Debtor

maintained for the Applicant (Annexure 2 of Additional Counter). The

ledger also records that DDGs (Maize) was sold/supplied to the Applicant

on different dates between 14.07.2019 to 22.10.2019 for the amount of

Rs.1,60,00,000. These transactions seem to have taken place pursuant to

MOU-I. We find no substance in the plea taken on behalf of Applicant that

this ledger was fabricated by the present RP as there were no invoices, debit

notes for the supplies and also the same was not filed by the erstwhile RP.

It is because mere non-filing of the ledger would not in itself amount to

fabrication. Hence, we observe that there cannot be any claim from both

the sides in respect of these amounts.

12
 I.A. (IBC) NO. 543/2024 IN C.P. (IB) NO. 99/7/HDB/2022
Kesari Nandan Traders vs RP of Nadhi Bio Products Pvt Ltd
Date: 12.06.2025

29. Further, it was submitted by the Applicant that an amount of Rs.40,00,000

was paid in cash to the Corporate Debtor. But the Respondent/RP

submitted that there was no record of receipt of this Rs.40,00,000 cash by

the Corporate Debtor. We also observe that no documentary evidence was

produced by the Applicant except that the same was written in the MOU-

I. But we also state that the same cannot bind the Corporate Debtor as the

person signing the MOU-I was not validly authorized by the Corporate

Debtor. Further, the same person have issued cheques and promissory

notes without any valid authorization and hence, the same cannot be treated

to be valid and binding on the Corporate Debtor. Additionally, there was

no record with the Corporate Debtor in respect of these documents.

30. In respect of MOU-II, the Applicant did not show any document

evidencing the transfer/payment of Rs.55,00,000 for the supply of 100

tonnes of DDGs, except two cheques for Rs.25,00,000 and Rs.30,00,000

(Page 42 of the Application) issued on behalf of the Corporate Debtor.

But these cheques do ot bear the name to whom payment is to be made and

also do not bear he date. Hence, these cannot be treated as valid documents

to make the Corporate Debtor liable under MOU-II. Similar to MOU-I,

there is no valid authorization to this MOU-II. Accordingly, we observe

that when there was no valid document provided by the Applicant, there

13
 I.A. (IBC) NO. 543/2024 IN C.P. (IB) NO. 99/7/HDB/2022
Kesari Nandan Traders vs RP of Nadhi Bio Products Pvt Ltd
Date: 12.06.2025

arises no liability on the part of Corporate Debtor in this regard. Hence,

there would be no claims from both the sides arising out of MOU-II.

31. Further, we have perused the Tax Invoices raised by the Applicant on the

Corporate Debtor in respect of the supply of Indian Coal between the

09.09.2021 to 31.12.2021. All these tax invoices were acknowledged by

the Corporate Debtor and were also accounted in the ledger maintained by

the Corporate Debtor for the Applicant (Annexure 1 of the Additional

Counter). These legers were also not disputed by the Applicant. As per

this ledger, an amount of Rs.80,05,817/- is owed by the Corporate Debtor

to the Applicant, and it is this amount which was admitted by the RP of the

Corporate Debtor.

32. With respect to the claim of interest, we would state that there was no

agreement between the Applicant and Corporate Debtor for interest on

delayed payments in respect of the supply of Indian Coal. It was only stated

in the Tax Invoice that 18% interest would be charged for delay of payment

beyond 30 days. As rightly relied on by the RP as stated in Rishab Infra

(supra), interest cannot be claimed unless agreed by both the parties.

Hence, the Applicant cannot claim any interest for delay in payments for

the supply of Indian Coal.

33. We have also perused the communications made between the Applicant

and RP. We observe that in respect of the claim of Applicant, the RP

14
 I.A. (IBC) NO. 543/2024 IN C.P. (IB) NO. 99/7/HDB/2022
Kesari Nandan Traders vs RP of Nadhi Bio Products Pvt Ltd
Date: 12.06.2025

continuously asked for valid documents viz., balance sheet, financial

statements. But the same were not provided by the Applicant to the

satisfaction of the RP. Even before this Adjudicating Authority, the

documents as relied on by the Applicant, as already analysed above, do not

show the entitlement of Applicant for an amount exceeding Rs.80,05,817/-

which was already admitted by the RP.

34. In view of this analysis, we observe that the RP cannot be directed to admit

the total claim of the Applicant for Rs. 7,29,96,779/-.

The point is answered accordingly.

35. In lieu of our observations to the point raised, we hold that the Applicant

is not entitled for a claim amount exceeding Rs.80,05,817/- already

admitted by the RP. Hence, the present application is liable to be dismissed.

36. Accordingly, the present application is dismissed, however, without costs.

SD/- SD/-
Charan Singh Rammurti Kushawaha
Member (Technical) Member (Judicial)

Anil/LRA

15
 NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL
HYDERABAD BENCH-1
IA (Plan) NO. 13 OF 2024
IN
C.P (IB). NO. 99/7/HDB/2022
Application under Sections 30(6) and 31 read with Regulation 39 (4) of IBBI
(CIRP) Regulations 2016,
IN THE MATTER OF:

R.K. DISTILLERIES PRIVATE LTD

FINANCIAL CREDITOR
VS

NADHI BIO PRODUCTS PRIVATE LTD

CORPORATE DEBTOR

Filed by
SREENIVASA RAO RAVINUTHALA
RP OF NADHI BIO PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED
Unit No. 1203A, 11 th Floor, Level 12, Vasavi MPM Grand
Yellareddy Guda Road, Ameerpet,
Hyderabad 500073, Telangana … Applicant / Resolution
Professional

Date of order: 12.06.2025

Coram:

Shri Rammurti Kushawaha, Hon’ble Member Judicial

Shri Charan Singh, Hon’ble Member Technical

Appearance:

For Applicant: Shri Shaik Gouse & Shri Mahadev Tirunagari, PCS
 NCLT hyd-1
IA (Plan) NO. 13 OF 2024
IN
C.P (IB). NO. 99/7/HDB/2022
DOO: 12.06.2025
2
PER : BENCH
ORDER

1. The present Application is filed by the Resolution Professional i.e. the

Applicant herein (hereinafter referred to as the "Resolution Professional"
or the "Applicant") of M/s. Nadhi Bio Products Private Limited
(Corporate Debtor), under Sections 30(6) and 31 read with Regulation 39
(4) of IBBI (CIRP) Regulations 2016, seeking approval of Adjudicating
Authority under section 31 of the IBBI, 2016, on the Resolution Plan
submitted by Mr. Nakkirikanti Rammurthy Jointly with Mr. Namburi
Visweswara Rao (Successful Resolution Applicant/SRA), as approved by
the Committee of Creditors (COC) with 82.29% of voting share.
2. AVERMENTS IN THE APPLICATION: -
• Initiation of CIRP:
That, a petition under Section 7 of the IBC was filed by R.K. Distilleries
Private Limited (“Financial Creditor”) against the Corporate Debtor i.e.
Nadhi Bio Products Private Limited, which was admitted by this Tribunal
vide order dated 26.05.2023 by appointing Mr. Ramakanth Malapalli as
Interim Resolution Professional and was replaced with True IPE Private
Limited represented by Mr. Chandra Prakash Jain, as the Interim
Resolution Professional, who was later confirmed as the Resolution
Professional. Subsequently, vide order dated 29.04.2024, the Hon’ble
Tribunal replaced the Erstwhile Resolution Professional with the present
Applicant, Mr. Sreenivasa Rao Ravinuthala, whose appointment order is
annexed and marked as Annexure 1.
 NCLT hyd-1
IA (Plan) NO. 13 OF 2024
IN
C.P (IB). NO. 99/7/HDB/2022
DOO: 12.06.2025
3
• Constitution of Committee of Creditors (CoC):
The Erstwhile Resolution Professional, after verification and collation of
claims, constituted the Committee of Creditors (CoC) comprising 28
members with admitted claims amounting to ₹65.70 Crores, and their
respective voting shares as tabulated below:

Sl.No. Name of the Financial Creditor Claim Admitted % of Voting

(in Rs.) Share
1. HDFC Bank Limited 18,83,79,180 28.67
2. Chennamaneni Mithun Chand 12,33,31,116 18.77
3. Bajaj Finance Limited, Somajiguda 11,36,24,562 17.29
4. ICICI Bank Limited 7,37,50,474 11.22
5. SRR Agro Food Supplement (Syed 2,62,32,500 3.99
Razauddin)
6. RK Distilleries Private Limited 2,44,80,000 3.73
7. KalvaAkhil 1,84,50,010 2.81
8. SCIL Capital India Private Limited 1,71,11,311 2.60
9. Shanthi Devi Global Exim Pvt Ltd 1,50,00,000 2.28
10. KalvaSudhakar 82,50,000 1.26
11. Pankaj Kumar Agarwal 66,00,000 1.00
12. Dr. B Sampath Kumar 64,00,000 0.97
13. AvadhanulaSree Rama Chandra Murthy 55,00,000 0.84
HUF / AvadhanulaSree Rama Chandra
Murthy IND
14. Lakshmi Priya Balaji 46,43,333 0.71
15. Tippaluru Siva Sankar Reddy 45,00,000 0.68
16. AllamSumanth Reddy 36,00,000 0.55
17. SrikanthChandika 35,00,000 0.53
18. K P Constructions 25,00,000 0.38
19. Sai Hitech Consultancy 22,08,000 0.34
20. NandigamHarinath 15,00,000 0.23
21. Mukku Hara Gopal 14,50,101 0.22
22. TippaluruSirisha 13,07,250 0.20
23. Rohan Chandra Jewellers 10,00,000 0.15
(Kalakonda Rohan Chandra)
24. MukkuKoti Reddy 10,00,000 0.15
25. PoornimaKonagalla 9,60,000 0.15
 NCLT hyd-1
IA (Plan) NO. 13 OF 2024
IN
C.P (IB). NO. 99/7/HDB/2022
DOO: 12.06.2025
4
26. VijayaBhaskar Reddy Kandula 9,00,000 0.14
27. Mukku Siva Prasad 5,00,000 0.08
28. Narasa Reddy Mukku 4,00,000 0.06
Total 65,70,77,837 100.00

• CIRP Timeline & Extensions:

During the CIRP, this Tribunal has granted multiple extensions, which are
tabulated as below:

Sl.
Particulars Dates
No.

CIRP Commencement
1 26.05.2023 (Order uploaded on 06.06.2023)
Date

2 Expiry of 180 days 02.12.2023

Order dated 17.01.2024 (Effective from

3 1st Extension (90 days)
02.12.2023)

Order dated 26.03.2024 (Effective from

4 2nd Extension (60 days)
29.02.2024)

5 3rd Extension (30 days) Order dated 29.04.2024

Order dated 27.05.2024 (Effective from

6 Final Extension (30 days)
28.05.2024)

Final Expiry Date of CIRP 26.06.2024

• TOTAL COC MEETINGS CONDUCTED DURING CIRP:

A total of twenty-two (22) meetings of the Committee of Creditors (CoC)

were conducted during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP)
prior to the filing of the present application by the Resolution Professional.
 NCLT hyd-1
IA (Plan) NO. 13 OF 2024
IN
C.P (IB). NO. 99/7/HDB/2022
DOO: 12.06.2025
5
• APPOINTMENT OF REGISTERED VALUERS

The erstwhile Resolution Professional, in accordance with the applicable

provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and the relevant
regulations framed thereunder, obtained the valuation of the assets of the
Corporate Debtor. As per the said valuation, the fair value of the assets of the
Corporate Debtor is determined to be Rs. 72.21 Crores, and the liquidation
value is determined to be Rs. 47.37 Crores.

• EOI & RESOLUTION PLAN PROCESS:

Form G was first published on 16.11.2023, and after an extension (due to

elections), the last date for EOI submission was revised to 12.12.2023. The
final list of 21 Prospective Resolution Applicants (PRAs) was published
(Annexure – 3).

• RECEIPT & EVALUATION OF RESOLUTION PLANS:

It is submitted that, pursuant to the RFRP and the Information Memorandum,
the Erstwhile Resolution Professional received eight (8) Resolution Plans from
the final list of twenty-one (21) Expressions of Interest (EoIs).These Resolution
Plans were subsequently placed before the Committee of Creditors (CoC) for
its consideration, discussion, and approval in the 20th CoC Meeting held on
20.04.2024. The CoC deliberated and discussed upon the compliance, viability
and feasibility of final resolution plans as submitted by the 08 Prospective
Resolution Applicants and the same were put for e-voting from 23.04.2024 and
extended upto 27.05.2024, pursuant to the directions of this Hon’ble
Adjudicating Authority in IA 775 of 2024.
 NCLT hyd-1
IA (Plan) NO. 13 OF 2024
IN
C.P (IB). NO. 99/7/HDB/2022
DOO: 12.06.2025
6
• APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION PLAN:

The Resolution Plan submitted by Mr. Nakkirikanti Rammurthy jointly with

Mr. Namburi Visweswara Rao was approved by the CoC with 82.89% voting
share. It is submitted that the approved resolution plan meets all the
requirements envisaged under the Code, rules and regulations made there
under,

• LETTER OF INTENT & BANK GUARANTEE:

Pursuant to the approval, the Resolution Professional issued the Letter of Intent
and received Bank Guarantee bearing No. 06301IGL0001624 dated
01.06.2024 for ₹10 Crores. A copy of the letter of extension of Bank Guarantee
till 01.06.2026 is filed along with memo dated 09.06.2025.

3. SALIENT FEATURES OF RESOLUTION PLAN:

(a) Mr. Nakkirikanti Rammurthy, aged 64, has over 36 years of experience in agro
commodities, rice milling, real estate, hospitality, and solar power. He is known
for successfully turning around stressed assets and managing diverse business
ventures.
Mr. Namburi Visweswara Rao, aged 54, has over 20 years of experience in rice
trading, brokerage, and real estate, with expertise in marketing, sales, and
operations, contributing to profitability and business growth.
(b) The COC comprised of the following Financial Creditors and distribution of
voting share among them is as under:

Sl.No. Name of the Financial Claim % of Voted

Creditor Admitted Voting For/Against
(in Rs.) Share
1. HDFC Bank Limited 18,83,79,180 28.67 Yes
 NCLT hyd-1
IA (Plan) NO. 13 OF 2024
IN
C.P (IB). NO. 99/7/HDB/2022
DOO: 12.06.2025
7
2. Chennamaneni Mithun Chand 12,33,31,116 18.77 Yes
3. Bajaj Finance Limited, 11,36,24,562 17.29 Yes
Somajiguda
4. ICICI Bank Limited 7,37,50,474 11.22 Yes
5. SRR Agro Food 2,62,32,500 3.99 No
Supplement(Syed Razauddin)
6. RK Distilleries Private Limited 2,44,80,000 3.73 No
7. Kalva Akhil 1,84,50,010 2.81 Abstain
8. SCIL Capital India Private 1,71,11,311 2.60 Not Voted
Limited
9. Shanthi Devi Global Exim Pvt 1,50,00,000 2.28 Yes
Ltd
10. Kalva Sudhakar 82,50,000 1.26 Yes
11. Pankaj Kumar Agarwal 66,00,000 1.00 Yes
12. Dr. B Sampath Kumar 64,00,000 0.97 Yes
13. Avadhanula Sree Rama 55,00,000 0.84 Not Voted
Chandra Murthy HUF /
Avadhanula Sree Rama
Chandra Murthy IND
14. Lakshmi Priya Balaji 46,43,333 0.71 Yes
15. Tippaluru Siva Sankar Reddy 45,00,000 0.68 Not Voted
16. Allam Sumanth Reddy 36,00,000 0.55 No
17. Srikanth Chandika 35,00,000 0.53 Not Voted
18. K P Constructions 25,00,000 0.38 Yes
19. Sai Hitech Consultancy 22,08,000 0.34 Yes
20. Nandigam Harinath 15,00,000 0.23 Not Voted
21. Mukku Hara Gopal 14,50,101 0.22 No
22. Tippaluru Sirisha 13,07,250 0.20 Not Voted
23. Rohan Chandra Jewellers 10,00,000 0.15 Not Voted
(Kalakonda Rohan Chandra)
24. MukkuKoti Reddy 10,00,000 0.15 No
25. Poornima Konagalla 9,60,000 0.15 No
26. Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy 9,00,000 0.14 No
Kandula
27. Mukku Siva Prasad 5,00,000 0.08 No
28. Narasa Reddy Mukku 4,00,000 0.06 No
Total 65,70,77,837 100.00
Voted 82.89%
No 9.07%
 NCLT hyd-1
IA (Plan) NO. 13 OF 2024
IN
C.P (IB). NO. 99/7/HDB/2022
DOO: 12.06.2025
8
Not Voted 5.23%
Abstain 2.81

(c) The amounts provided for the stakeholders under the Resolution Plan is as
under:
(Amount in Rs. lakh)
Sl. Category Sub-Category of Amount Amount Amount Amount
No. of Stakeholder Claimed Admitted Provided Provided
Stakehol under the to the
der* Plan# Amount
Claimed

(%)

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)

1 Secured (a) Creditors not

Financial having a right to vote
Creditors under sub-section
(2) of section 21

(b) Other than (a)

above:
- - - -
(i) who did not vote in
favour of the
resolution Plan 3757.54 3757.54 3757.54 100%
(ii) who voted in
favour of the
resolution plan

Total[(a) + (b)] 3757.54 3757.54 3757.54 100%

2 Unsecure (a) Creditors not 184.58 86.44 86.44 100%

d having a right to vote
Financial under sub-section
Creditors (2) of section 21
 NCLT hyd-1
IA (Plan) NO. 13 OF 2024
IN
C.P (IB). NO. 99/7/HDB/2022
DOO: 12.06.2025
9
(b) Other than (a)
above:

(i) who did not vote in

1564.81 1123.91 1123.91 100%
favour of the
resolution Plan

(ii) who voted in 1909.25 1689.32 1689.32 100%

favour of the
resolution plan

Total[(a) + (b)] 3658.64 2899.67 2899.67 100%

3 Operatio (a) Related Party of - - - -

nal Corporate Debtor
Creditors
(b) Other than (a)
above:
1981.81 8.45 8.45 100%
(i)Government
- - - -
(ii)Workmen
328.78 1.15 1.15 100%
(iii)Employees
16475.62 7621.28 2286.38 30%
(iv) Other than above

Total[(a) + (b)] 18786.21 7630.89 2295.99 30.09%

4 Other IBBI Regulated fee 26.41 -

debts and
dues

Grand Total 26202.40 14288.10 8979.62

(d) PROPOSED PAYMENT DISTRIBUTION TO THE STAKEHODLERS:

The SRA undertakes to distribute the Plan amount of Rs. 90.50 crores in the
following manner:
 NCLT hyd-1
IA (Plan) NO. 13 OF 2024
IN
C.P (IB). NO. 99/7/HDB/2022
DOO: 12.06.2025
10

Name of the Creditor Admitted Resolution (%) Upfront cash Total

ClaimRs. amount Rs. payment Rs. Settlement
amount
Rs.

CRIP Cost (estimated) 70,00,000 70,00,000 100% 70,00,000 70,00,000

Secured Financial Creditors
Unrelated 37,57,54,216 37,57,54,216 100% 37,57,54,216 37,57,54,216
Related -- -- -- --
Un-Secured Financial
Creditor
1. Unrelated Parties 28,99,67,521 28,99,67,521 100% 28,99,67,521 28,99,67,521
2. Related Parties
-- --
Operational Creditors
i. Operational creditors
(Statutory dues) 8,45,237 8,45,237 100% 8,45,237 8,45,237
ii. Operational Creditors 1,15,360 1,15,360 100% 1,15,360 1,15,360
(Employees / workmen)
iii. Operational Creditors
(other than Statutory & 76,21,28,193 22,86,38,458 30% 22,86,38,458 22,86,38,458
workmen / employees)

Total liabilities as per 143,58,10,527 90,23,20,792 90,23,20,792 90,23,20,792

Information Memorandum
Other estimated liabilities -- -- -- --
(not claimed) –
- IBBI (fee on realizable 26,41,196 26,41,196
value to creditors on
approval of Resolution
Plan)
Total Liabilities 143,58,10,527 90,23,20,792 90,49,61,988 90,49,61,988

Further SRA also propose to infuse an amount of Rs.28 Crore towards the
repairs and maintenance of the plant and machinery, capital investment for
capacity increase and working capital requirements after a period of 30 days
depending upon the requirements of funds from time to time.
 NCLT hyd-1
IA (Plan) NO. 13 OF 2024
IN
C.P (IB). NO. 99/7/HDB/2022
DOO: 12.06.2025
11
(e) Monitoring Mechanism:
A Monitoring Committee comprising the RP, 2 CoC members, and 2 Resolution
Applicant nominees shall oversee plan implementation. The term of Monitoring
Committee shall automatically terminate and stand dissolved upon the
occurrence of Completion Date, without any action required to be taken by
Resolution Applicant or Corporate Debtor.
(f) Compliance of mandatory contents of Resolution Plan under the Code and
Regulations.

The Applicant has conducted a thorough compliance check of the Resolution

Plan in terms of the Code as well as Regulations 38 & 39 of the Insolvency and
Bankruptcy Board of India (Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process)
Regulations, 2016 and has filed Form ‘H’ prescribed under Regulation 39(4) of
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for
Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016.

(g) PUFE Transaction Handling:

The Resolution Plan provides mechanism for post-approval litigation of PUFE

transactions. Any recovery realized will accrue to the Corporate Debtor as
100% payment is being made to financial creditors. However, the Resolution
Applicant will meet the cost of litigation during the period post approval of
resolution plan till completion of Resolution Plan implementation. Post
implementation, the Corporate Debtor under the management of the
Resolution Applicant will pursue the litigation to its logical end.
(h) Source of Funds

Under this Resolution Plan:

 NCLT hyd-1
IA (Plan) NO. 13 OF 2024
IN
C.P (IB). NO. 99/7/HDB/2022
DOO: 12.06.2025
12
i. A total amount of ₹90.50 Crores is proposed to be paid in cash, upfront,
within 30 days from the date of approval of the Resolution Plan by the
Hon’ble NCLT. This amount shall be treated as full and final settlement
towards the claims of Financial Creditors, Operational Creditors,
Government dues, other estimated liabilities, and the Corporate
Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) costs.

ii. The aforementioned amount of ₹90.50 Crores shall be funded by the

Resolution Applicant and his associate as follows:

Source Amount (₹ in Crores)

Share Capital contribution by the Resolution Applicants 33.00

Unsecured Loans from the Resolution Applicants 7.00

Contribution from Associates 50.50

Total Commitment 90.50

In addition to this commitment as per the Resolution Plan, the following

funds will be brought in by the promoter

Repairs & Maintenance of plant & machinery Rs. 5.00 Cr

Capital investment for the addition of a bottling plant
(Within one / two year of stabilization of plant) Rs. 15.00 Cr
Working Capital, initial working capital, to be Rs. 8.00 Cr
----------------
Total Rs.28.00 Cr
----------------
These funds will be brought in by way of short-term funds, which will be replaced
through bank funding after the stabilisation of operations.
 NCLT hyd-1
IA (Plan) NO. 13 OF 2024
IN
C.P (IB). NO. 99/7/HDB/2022
DOO: 12.06.2025
13
M/s Manchukonda Agrotech Private Limited has agreed to provide short-term
funds up to Rs.70.00 Cr to the Corporate Debtor, M/s Nadhi Bio Products Pvt
Ltd, once these RAs become Successful Resolution Applicants.

4. In the above backdrop we heard Shri Shaik Gouse, Ld. PCS for the
Resolution Professional and perused the records. He submits that the
Resolution Plan meets the requirement of Section 30 (2) of the Code, as
under:

Provisions under Section 30(2) of Compliance under Resolution Plan

the Code
(a) provides for the payment of Yes, provision has been made for payment
insolvency resolution process costs in a of the Insolvency Resolution Process Cost
manner specified by the Board in of Rs. 70.00 lakhs under the Resolution
priority to the repayment of other debts Plan. Any amount of excess or shortfall
of the Corporate Debtor; towards the CIRP cost shall be paid by the
Resolution Applicant. (Clause 6.1 Page
No.12).

[(b) Whether the plan provides for the The amount proposed to be paid to
payment to the Operational Creditors government authorities is Rs. 8,45,237/-
and to other operational creditor (workmen
and employees) is Rs. 1,15,360/-. Further
an amount of Rs. 22,86,38,456/- is
earmarked for dues of the operational
creditors (other than dues of workmen and
employees and Govt. dues. (clauses 6.4 &
6.5 page Nos. 13-15).

(c)Payment to Financial creditors who Yes provision has been for making payment
did not vote in favour of the resolution of Rs.1689.32 Lakhs to the Unsecured
plan. Financial creditors who did not vote in
favour of the Resolution Plan.
(d) Management of the affairs of the Yes the Resolution Plan provides for the
Corporate Debtor after approval of the management of the affairs of the Corporate
resolution plan Debtor (Clause 12.1 Page No 20).
 NCLT hyd-1
IA (Plan) NO. 13 OF 2024
IN
C.P (IB). NO. 99/7/HDB/2022
DOO: 12.06.2025
14
(e) Provides for the implementation and Yes, Provides for the implementation and
supervision of the Resolution Plan supervision of the Resolution Plan (Clause
16 Page 25).
(f)That the plan does not contravene Statement has been included in the
any of the provisions of the law for the Resolution Plan. (Clause 15.1 page 25)
time being in force

5. Further, the Resolution Plan is in compliance of Regulation 38 of the

Regulations in the following manner:

CIRP Provisions of CIRP Regulations Relevant clause / page no. of

Regulation Resolution Plan document

Regulation The amount payable under the Yes. Clause 6.5

38(1)(a) resolution plan to the operational
creditors, shall be paid in priority
over financial creditors.

Regulation Whether the resolution plan Clause 6.

38(1A) includes a statement as to how it Declaration by the Resolution
has dealt with interest of all Applicant that the Resolution
stakeholders including Financial Plan has considered the interest
Creditors and Operational Creditors of all the stakeholders of the
of the Corporate Debtor. Corporate Debtor, keeping in
view the objectives of the Code.
Regulation Whether the Resolution Applicant or Clause 4.3: Declaration by the
38(1B) any of its related parties has failed to
Resolution Applicant that
implement or contributed to the neither the Resolution Applicant
failure of implementation of any nor any of its related party has
resolution plan approved under the either failed or contributed to
Code the failure of the
implementation of any
If so, whether the Resolution Resolution Plan approved under
Applicant has submitted the the Code.
statement giving details of such
non-implementation.
 NCLT hyd-1
IA (Plan) NO. 13 OF 2024
IN
C.P (IB). NO. 99/7/HDB/2022
DOO: 12.06.2025
15

6. This Tribunal sought clarification from the Ld. PCS representing the Resolution
Professional as to how the two claims that were admitted after filing of the
application for approval of the Resolution Plan before the Adjudicating Authority,
were dealt with? Pursuant thereto, the Ld. PCS filed a memo dated 11.06.2025,
stating that the Resolution Professional admitted the following two claims
pursuant to the orders passed by the Adjudicating Authority in the IA mentioned
hereunder:

IA No. Name of the Applicant Amount of claim Amount of Claim

Rs. admitted Rs.

655 Agri Link Enterprises 2,60,05,529 82,21,259

961 Sri Krishna Sai Traders 2,75,09,550 2,75,09,550

7. The Ld. PCS further submitted that Clause 7 of the Resolution Plan provides for
Limit of liability of the Applicant restricted to the resolution amount of
Rs.90,49,61,987 except the resolution process cost to be incurred by the
Resolution Professional. The clause 7 of the Resolution plan is extracted below

7. Limit on Liability:
“Notwithstanding anything contained in this Resolution Plan, in no event the
total payments by the Resolution Applicant to its stakeholders as mentioned in
the Clause 6 of this Resolution Plan, shall exceed Rs.90,49,61,987. However,
this amount is exclusive of and subject to the total Resolution Process cost to
be incurred by the Resolution Professional until the completion date and any
amount payable to EPF authorities on reconciliation with the EPF Department.”
 NCLT hyd-1
IA (Plan) NO. 13 OF 2024
IN
C.P (IB). NO. 99/7/HDB/2022
DOO: 12.06.2025
16
8. It is submitted that in clause 6 of the Resolution Plan, the Resolution Applicant
allocated an amount of Rs.22,86,38,458 towards the settlement of the
Operational Creditors whose claims were admitted.

9. In view of the aforesaid clauses, the two claims of operational creditors

admitted by the Resolution Professional pursuant to the orders of this
Adjudicating Authority, will be settled as per the allocation of amounts by the
Resolution Applicant in the resolution plan i.e the amount proportionately
distributed among the operational creditors in the ratio of their admitted claims.

10. At the outset we refer to the following judgements: -

(a) Hon’ble Apex Court in re Sashidhar v. Indian Overseas Bank & Others (in
Civil Appeal No. 10673/2018) held that

“if the CoC had approved the Resolution Plan by requisite percent
of voting share, then as per Section 30 (6) of the Code, it is
imperative for the Resolution Professional to submit the same to the
Adjudicating Authority. On receipt of such proposal, the
Adjudicating Authority (NCLT) is required to satisfy itself that the
resolution plan as approved by CoC meets the requirements
specified in Section 30(2). No more and no less”.

(b) The Hon’ble Supreme Court has further held at para 35 of the above
judgement that:

the discretion of the adjudicating authority (NCLT) is

circumscribed by Section 31 limited to scrutiny of the
resolution plan “as approved” by the requisite percent of
voting share of financial creditors. Even in that enquiry, the
grounds on which the adjudicating authority can reject the
resolution plan is in reference to matters specified in Section
30(2), when the resolution plan does not conform to the stated
requirements.
 NCLT hyd-1
IA (Plan) NO. 13 OF 2024
IN
C.P (IB). NO. 99/7/HDB/2022
DOO: 12.06.2025
17

(c) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Committee of Creditors of Essar

Steel India Limited Vs. Satish Kumar Gupta & Ors, held that:-

“the limited judicial review available to AA has to be within the

four corners of section 30(2) of the Code. Such review can in
no circumstance trespass upon a business decision of the
majority of the CoC. As such the Adjudicating Authority would
not have power to modify the Resolution Plan which the CoC
in their commercial wisdom have approved”.

(d) The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the recent ruling in re Vallal
RCK vs M/s Siva Industries and Holdings Limited & Ors, has held as
under:-

21. This Court has consistently held that the commercial wisdom
of the CoC has been given paramount status without any judicial
intervention for ensuring completion of the stated processes
within the timelines prescribed by the IBC. It has been held that
there is an intrinsic assumption, that financial creditors are fully
informed about the viability of the corporate debtor and feasibility
of the proposed resolution plan. They act on the basis of thorough
examination of the proposed resolution plan and assessment
made by their team of experts. A reference in this respect could be
made to the judgments of this Court in the cases of K. Sashidhar v.
Indian Overseas Bank and Others, Committee of Creditors of
Essar Steel India Limited through Authorised Signatory v. Satish
Kumar Gupta and Others, Maharashtra Seamless Limited v.
Padmanabhan Venkatesh and Others, Kalpraj Dharamshi and
Another v. Kotak Investment Advisors Limited and Another, and
Jaypee Kensington Boulevard Apartments Welfare Association
and Others v. NBCC (India) Limited and Others.

27. This Court has, time and again, emphasized the need for
minimal judicial interference by the NCLAT and NCLT in the
framework of IBC. We may refer to the recent observation of this
 NCLT hyd-1
IA (Plan) NO. 13 OF 2024
IN
C.P (IB). NO. 99/7/HDB/2022
DOO: 12.06.2025
18
Court made in the case of Arun Kumar Jagatramka v. Jindal Steel
and Power Limited and Another:

“95. …. However, we do take this opportunity to offer a note of

caution for NCLT and NCLAT, functioning as the adjudicatory
authority and appellate authority under the IBC respectively, from
judicially interfering in the framework envisaged under the IBC. As
we have noted earlier in the judgment, the IBC was introduced in
order to overhaul the insolvency and bankruptcy regime in India.
As such, it is a carefully considered and well thought out piece of
legislation which sought to shed away the practices of the past.
The legislature has also been working hard to ensure that the
efficacy of this legislation remains robust by constantly amending
it based on its experience. Consequently, the need for judicial
intervention or innovation from NCLT and NCLAT should be kept at
its bare minimum and should not disturb the foundational
principles of the IBC…..”

4. According to the Applicant, from the date of commencement of CIRP to

till date of filing this instant application, a total of 22 COC meetings were
convened.

5. It if further noted that the 180 days’ time limit for completion of the CIRP
as per Section 12 of the Code was 02.12.2023. However, the time was
extended time and again and the date of expiry of extended period of CIRP
was 26.06.2024.

6. The highlights of the resolution plan are as under:-

 NCLT hyd-1
IA (Plan) NO. 13 OF 2024
IN
C.P (IB). NO. 99/7/HDB/2022
DOO: 12.06.2025
19
1. IA No/CP No. IA 13/2024 in CP (IB) No.
99/7/HDB/2022
2. Date of filing of resolution plan with 12.06.2024
the Adjudicating Authority
3. Name of the Resolution Applicant Mr.Nakkirikanti Rammurthy
Jointly with Mr. Namburi
Visweswara Rao
4. Voting % in favour of the Resolution 82.89%
Plan
5. Resolution Plan Amount provided by Rs. 90.50 Crores (including CIRP
the SRA to the stakeholders costs). Further infusion of Rs. 28
crores for repairs, capex and
working capital post-
implementation.
6. Total claims admitted by the RP Rs. 7630.89 lakhs
7. % of amount provided to the 30.1%
stakeholders under the Resolution
Plan to the amount admitted
8. Hair Cut 69.9%
9. Fair Value Rs. 72.21 cr
10. Liquidation Value Rs. 47.37 cr
11. PBG provided by SRA Rs.10 crores
12. Term/Implementation schedule 30 days from the NCLT
approval date

7. According to the Resolution Professional, the said Resolution Plan

complies with all the provisions of the IBC, IBBI / CIRP Regulations and
does not contravene any of the provisions of the law for the time being in
force and the Successful Resolution Applicant has filed an Affidavit
 NCLT hyd-1
IA (Plan) NO. 13 OF 2024
IN
C.P (IB). NO. 99/7/HDB/2022
DOO: 12.06.2025
20
pursuant to Section 30 (1) of the Code, confirming its eligibility under
Section 29A of the code and the Resolution Professional affirms that the
contents of the said Affidavit are in order.

8. Therefore, the resolution plan, when tested on the touch stone of the
aforesaid facts and the rulings, we are of the view that the instant
resolution plan satisfies the requirements of Section 30 (2) of the Code
and Regulations 37, 38, 38 (1A) and 39 (4) of the Regulations. We also find
that the Resolution Applicant is eligible to submit the Resolution Plan
under Section 29A of the Code.

9. We therefore, hereby approve the Resolution Plan submitted by Mr.

Nakirikanti Ramamurthy and Mr. Namburi Visweswara Rao
(“Successful Resolution Applicant”) along with annexures, schedules
forming part of the Resolution Plan annexed to the Application and order
as under: -

(a) The Resolution Plan along with annexures and schedules forming part of
the 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 in respect of the
payment of dues arising under any law for the time being in force is due,
guarantors and other stakeholders involved in the Resolution Plan.
(b) All crystallized liabilities and unclaimed liabilities of the Corporate
Debtor as on the date of this order shall stand extinguished on the
approval of this Resolution Plan.
 NCLT hyd-1
IA (Plan) NO. 13 OF 2024
IN
C.P (IB). NO. 99/7/HDB/2022
DOO: 12.06.2025
21
(c) The approval of the Resolution Plan shall not be construed as waiver of
any statutory obligations/ liabilities of the Corporate Debtor and shall be
dealt with by the appropriate Authorities in accordance with law. Any
waiver sought in the Resolution Plan, shall be subject to approval by the
Authorities concerned as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of
Ghanashyam Mishra & Sons Private Limited Versus Edelweiss Asset
Reconstruction Company Limited in CIVIL APPEAL NO.8129 OF 2019
dated 13.04.2021.
(d) It is hereby ordered that performance guarantee of Rs. 10,00,00,000/-
deposited by the Successful Resolution Applicant shall remain as
performance Guarantee till the amount proposed to be paid to the
creditors under the plan, is fully paid off and the plan is fully
implemented.
(e) The Memorandum of Association (MoA) and Articles of Association (AoA)
shall accordingly be amended and filed, if applicable, with the Registrar
of Companies (RoC) Hyderabad for information and record. The
Resolution Applicant, for effective implementation of the Plan, shall
obtain all necessary approvals, under any law for the time being in force,
within such period as may be prescribed.
(f) Henceforth, no creditors of the erstwhile Corporate Debtor can claim
anything other than the liabilities referred to supra.
(g) The moratorium under Section 14 of the Code shall cease to have effect
from this date.
 NCLT hyd-1
IA (Plan) NO. 13 OF 2024
IN
C.P (IB). NO. 99/7/HDB/2022
DOO: 12.06.2025
22
(h) The Applicant shall forward all records relating to the conduct of the CIRP
and the Resolution Plan to the IBBI along with copy of this order for
information.
(i) The Applicant shall forthwith send a copy of this order to the CoC and the
Resolution Applicant.
(j) The Registry is directed to furnish free copy to the parties as per Rule 50
of the NCLT Rules, 2016.
(k) The Registry is directed to communicate this order to the Registrar of
Companies, Hyderabad for updating the master data and also forward a
copy to IBBI.
(l) The Monitoring Committee/ Resolution Professional will submit a
report to the Registry immediately after the implementation of the
Plan.
(m) Accordingly, IA No. (plan) 13/2024 is allowed and stands disposed of.

SD/- SD/-
(CHARAN SINGH) (RAMMURTI KUSHAWAHA)
MEMBER (TECHNICAL) MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

Binnu