Allowed

Approval of Resolution Plan - Jai Venktesh Concast Private Limited [Ia (Ibc) (Plan) No. 36/(KB)/2025 in Cp(Ib) No. 243/(KB)/2023]

NCLT12 Jun 2026IA (IBC) (PLAN) No. 36/(KB)/2025 in CP(IB) No. 243/(KB)/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The NCLT approved a Revised Resolution Plan for Jai Venktesh Concast Private Limited submitted by Kejriwal Castings Limited, valued at Rs. 18.05 crores. The tribunal directed the invocation of personal guarantees by financial creditors, clarified that Section 32A extinguishes corporate debtor's criminal liability but not that of directors/officers, and lifted the moratorium.

What did the court decide?

Revised Resolution Plan of Kejriwal Castings Limited approved. Moratorium lifted. Resolution Professional discharged. Director to invoke personal guarantees of guarantors.

Approval of Resolution Plan - Jai Venktesh Concast… — Insolvency and Bankruptcy | NCLT (2026)

¶1

In the National Company Law Tribunal Division Bench, (Court-I), Kolkata

¶2

IA (IBC) (PLAN) No. 36/ (KB) /2025 In CP(IB) No. 243/( KB) /2023

¶3

Application under section 30(6) and section 31 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 read with regulation 39(4) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 for approval of Resolution Plan

¶4

In the Matter of:

¶5

Damodar Valley Corporation

¶6

…Operational Creditor

¶7

And

¶8

Jai Venktesh Concast Private Limited

¶9

….Corporate Debtor

¶10

And

¶11

In the matter of:

¶12

Mr. Sandip Kumar Kejriwal, Resolution Professional of Jai Venktesh Concast Private Limited

¶13

….Applicant / RP

¶14

Date of Pronouncement of order: 12.06.2026

¶15

Coram:

¶16

Smt. Bidisha Banerjee : Member (Judicial) Cmde. Siddharth Mishra : Member (Technical)

¶17

Counsel appeared physically / through video Conferencing

¶18

Mr. Kanishka Kejriwal, Adv. ] for the RP

¶19

Mr. Sandip Kejriwal, RP in person

¶20

In the National Company Law Tribunal Division Bench, (Court-I), Kolkata IA (IBC) (PLAN) No. 36/ (KB) /2025 In CP(IB) No. 243/( KB) /2023

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Per Bidisha Banerjee, Member (Judicial):

¶23

The Court convened through hybrid mode.

¶24

Ld. Counsel for the parties were heard at length.

¶25

3. This application has been preferred by the Resolution Professional of Jai Venktesh Concast Private Limited (CD) to seek approval of Resolution Plan in its entirety along with all annexures, Schedule, Appendixes including the claims contained therein as submitted by Kejriwal Castings Limited, the Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA in short) along with reliefs and concessions sought for under the Plan.

¶26

The Resolution Plan of Kejriwal Castings Limited has been approved by CoC by 100% vote on and Kejriwal Castings Limited was declared as Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA) in respect of the Corporate Debtor.

¶27

5. Submissions of the Applicant / Resolution Professional

¶28

a. The CIRP of Corporate Debtor commenced on 19.06.2025. In the said order, Mr. Sandip Kumar Kejriwal having IBBI No. IBBI/IPA002/IP-N00236/2017-18/10687 was appointed as the Interim Resolution Professional.

¶29

b. The IRP has made Public Announcement on 23.06.2025 in Financial Express (English), Aajkaal (Bengali) to invite claims from various creditors of the Corporate Debtor to the IRP.

¶30

c. The RP has submitted a report certifying Constitution of CoC with this Tribunal on 09.07.2025.

¶31

d. The Applicant / IRP was appointed as RP with the approval of the 1^st CoC meeting held on 19.07.2025 and this Tribunal vide an order dated 05.08.2025 recorded the same.

¶32

e. Thereafter, the RP states that 3 Registered Valuers has been appointed for valuing three class of assets. The aforesaid Valuers have shared their reports with the member of CoC on 14.09.2025. The average fair value and liquidation value of the assets of the

¶33

Page 2 of 23

¶34

In the National Company Law Tribunal Division Bench, (Court-I), Kolkata

¶35

IA (IBC) (PLAN) No. 36/ (KB) /2025 In CP(IB) No. 243/( KB) /2023

¶36

Corporate Debtor as determined by the aforesaid Registered Valuers are as follows:

¶37

f. Thereafter, the Applicant / RP had appointed Transaction Auditor to form an opinion that fraudulent and / or preferential transactions had been entered by erstwhile management of the Corporate Debtor. The Transaction Auditor had filed its report on 16.10.2025 before the RP and the RP had filed an application under Section 66 of the IBC before this Tribunal ON 31.10.2025.

¶38

g. Further, the Applicant submits that he had issued EoI in form – ‘G’ published on 28.07.2025 in Aajkaal (Bengali Daily) and Financial Express (English Daily). In view of such, 7 EoIs were received by the Applicant from the Prospective Resolution Applicant (PRAs). Subsequently, the Applicant had shared the Request for Resolution Plan (RFRP), Information Memorandum along with Evaluation Matrix to the PRAs.

¶39

h. In view of such, the Applicant had received four (4) Resolution Plans from the four PRAs and the same were opened before the Members of CoC at the 5^th Meeting held on 03.10.2025.

¶40

i. Thereafter, the applicant / RP submits that CoC had permitted the PRAs to amend the RFRP to all the PRAs for final resolution plan. Further, the Applicant had scrutinized the amended

¶41

Page 3 of 23

¶42

In the National Company Law Tribunal Division Bench, (Court-I), Kolkata

¶43

IA (IBC) (PLAN) No. 36/ (KB) /2025 In CP(IB) No. 243/( KB) /2023

¶44

Resolution Plans and placed the final resolution plans before the CoC in its 6^th CoC Meeting held on 01.11.2025.

¶45

j. Thereafter, the CoC had decided to put up all four resolution plans for voting, at the end of the voting period, the CoC had unanimously, approved the resolution plan of Kejriwal Castings Limited as Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA) with 100% vote.

¶46

The applicant / RP has provided a list of dates of CIRP in detail as

¶47

follows:

¶48

Page 4 of 23

¶49

In the National Company Law Tribunal Division Bench, (Court-I), Kolkata IA (IBC) (PLAN) No. 36/ (KB) /2025 In CP(IB) No. 243/( KB) /2023

¶50

As per direction of this Tribunal vide order dated 19.05.2026, the RP has filed an Supplementary Affidavit affirmed on 02.06.2026 and filed with the registry on 04.06.2026. The RP has stated in the Supplementary Affidavit that the Revised Resolution Plan along with the addendum for the Corporate Debtor Jai Venktesh Concast Pvt. Ltd Undergoing Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP), updated based on IM updation by RP on 22-04-2026 & 25-04-2026 post acceptance by RP of CGST department liability Rs 48,36,25,769/- and Income Tax department liability Rs 41,53,29,490/-, which are now duly incorporated in our enclosed revised resolution plan and payment against same is proposed as Rs 1,00,000/- for each liability.

¶51

Given the Fair value and Liquidation value noted above, the Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA) namely Kejriwal Castings Limited under the Revised Resolution Plan with the Supplementary Affidavit has provided overview of the of the Financial summary of the Resolution Plan of the Corporate Debtor for Rs.18,05,59,939/- (Rupees Eighteen Crores Five Lakh Fifty-nine Thousand Nine Hundred and Thirtynine only) .

¶52

The amounts claimed, amount admitted and the amount provided under the Resolution Plan are as under:

¶53

Plan Pay Out:

¶54

(Amount in Rupees)

¶55

Sl. No.	Category of Creditor	Amount of Claim	Claim Admitted	Amount provided in the Plan
1. CIR	P Costs	-	-	20,00,000.00
2. Sec Credito -Credito right to section (NIL)	ured Financial r rs not having a vote under sub- (2) of section 21

¶56

Page 5 of 23

¶57

In the National Company Law Tribunal Division Bench, (Court-I), Kolkata IA (IBC) (PLAN) No. 36/ (KB) /2025 In CP(IB) No. 243/( KB) /2023

¶58

Sl. No.	Category of Creditor	Amount of Claim	Claim Admitted	Amount provided in the Plan
- Disse - Assen	nting (NIL) ting	24,26,21,545.00	24,26,21,545.00	17,21,00,000.00
3. Uns Credit	ecured Financial or	NIL	NIL	NIL
4. Credit workm & /statu	Operational ors (Other than en & employees Government tory dues)
(i)	Government (Income Tax)	41,53,29,490.00	Not Admitted a. Claim was sub months. b. Details of claim RP alongwith cl Income Tax dep dated 03.11.20 09.11.2025, an physically on0	mitted after 4 not submitted to aim. RP reminded artment vide mail 25, 05.11.2025, d one time 6.11.2025.
	Workmen - PF dues	21,86,474.00	21,86,474.00	21,86,474.00
(ii)	Other PF dues	1,21,37,527.00	Not admitted. PF submitted docum reminded PF dep dated 03.11.20 08.10.2025, butn	department not ents of claim. RP artment vide mail 25, 10.10.2025, oreplyreceived.
(iii)	ESI	34,73,465.00	34,73,465.00	34,73,465.00
(iv)	Other Operational Creditors. a. Damodar Valley Corporation for Electricity Charges bills to the factory ofCD	38,08,23,602.00	38,08,23,602.00	6,00,000.00

¶59

Page 6 of 23

¶60

In the National Company Law Tribunal Division Bench, (Court-I), Kolkata

¶61

IA (IBC) (PLAN) No. 36/ (KB) /2025 In CP(IB) No. 243/( KB) /2023

¶62

Sl. No.	Category of Creditor	Amount of Claim	Claim Admitted	Amount provided in the Plan
	b. Income Tax Department c. CGST Department	41,53,29,490.00 48,36,25,769.00	41,53,29,490.00 48,36,25,769.00	1,00,000.00 1,00,000.00
	b. Others	21,60,649.00	NIL	Not Admitted due to submission of claim beyond 90 days.
5	TOTAL	1,05,87,32,754.00	62,91,05,088.00	18,05,59,939.00

¶63

In the course of the hearing, the Learned Counsel for the Resolution Professional would submit that the Resolution Plan complies with all the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, read with relevant Regulations of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 and does not contravene any of the provisions of law for the time being in force. The Synopsis are as under:

¶64

Page 7 of 23

¶65

In the National Company Law Tribunal Division Bench, (Court-I), Kolkata

¶66

IA (IBC) (PLAN) No. 36/ (KB) /2025 In CP(IB) No. 243/( KB) /2023

¶67

Page 8 of 23

¶68

In the National Company Law Tribunal Division Bench, (Court-I), Kolkata

¶69

IA (IBC) (PLAN) No. 36/ (KB) /2025 In CP(IB) No. 243/( KB) /2023

¶70

Page 9 of 23

¶71

In the National Company Law Tribunal Division Bench, (Court-I), Kolkata

¶72

IA (IBC) (PLAN) No. 36/ (KB) /2025 In CP(IB) No. 243/( KB) /2023

¶73

Page 10 of 23

¶74

In the National Company Law Tribunal Division Bench, (Court-I), Kolkata

¶75

IA (IBC) (PLAN) No. 36/ (KB) /2025 In CP(IB) No. 243/( KB) /2023

¶76

Page 11 of 23

¶77

In the National Company Law Tribunal Division Bench, (Court-I), Kolkata

¶78

IA (IBC) (PLAN) No. 36/ (KB) /2025 In CP(IB) No. 243/( KB) /2023

¶79

A bare perusal of the extracts / excerpts from the Plan establishes that

¶80

a. The Resolution Plan submitted by SRA has been approved with 100% vote by CoC .

¶81

b. As per the CoC, the plan meets the requirement of being viable and feasible for revival of the Corporate Debtor.

¶82

c. By and large, all the compliances have been done by the RP and the Resolution Applicant for making the plan effective after its approval.

¶83

Findings

¶84

Accordingly, on perusal of the documents on record, supported by an affidavit of the Resolution Professional, we accord our satisfaction that the Resolution Plan as approved by the CoC, is in accordance with sections 30 and 31 of the IBC and also comply with regulations 38 and 39 of the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016, as enumerated supra.

¶85

Reliefs, Waivers and Concessions:

¶86

We have perused the reliefs, waivers and concessions as sought for in the application. It is evident that some of the reliefs, waivers and concessions sought by the Resolution Applicant come within the ambit of the I&B Code and the Companies Act 2013, while many others fall under the power and jurisdiction of different government authorities/departments. This Adjudicating Authority has the power to grant reliefs, waivers and concessions only concerning the reliefs, waivers and concessions that are directly with the I&B Code and the Companies Act (within the powers of the NCLT). The reliefs, waivers and concessions that pertain to other governmental authorities/departments may be dealt with by the respective competent authorities/forums/offices, Government or Semi-Government of the

¶87

Page 12 of 23

¶88

In the National Company Law Tribunal Division Bench, (Court-I), Kolkata

¶89

IA (IBC) (PLAN) No. 36/ (KB) /2025 In CP(IB) No. 243/( KB) /2023

¶90

State or Central Government concerning the respective reliefs, waivers and concession, whenever sought for. The competent authorities including the Appellate authorities may consider granting such reliefs, waivers and concessions keeping in view the spirit of the I&B Code, 2016 and the Companies Act, 2013.

¶91

As far as the question of granting time to comply with the statutory obligations or seeking approvals from authorities is concerned, the Resolution Applicant is directed to do so within one year from the date of this order, as prescribed under section 31(4) of the I&B Code.

¶92

It is almost trite and fairly well settled that the Resolution Plan must be consistent with the extant law. The Resolution Applicant shall make necessary applications to the concerned regulatory or statutory authorities for renewal of business permits and supply of essential services, if required, and all necessary forms along with filing fees etc. and such authority shall also consider the same keeping in mind the objectives of the Code, which is essentially the resolving of the insolvency of the Corporate Debtor.

¶93

In this context, we would rely upon the judgment in Embassy Property Developments Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Karnataka reported at MANU/SC/1661/2019: (2020) 13 SCC 308 , wherein, the Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down that:

¶94

“ 39. If NCLT has been conferred with jurisdiction to decide all types of claims to property, of the corporate debtor, Section 18(f)(vi) would not have made the task of the interim resolution professional in taking control and custody of an asset over which the corporate debtor has ownership rights, subject to the determination of ownership by a court or other authority. In fact an asset owned by a third party, but which is in the possession of the corporate debtor under contractual arrangements, is specifically kept out of the definition of the term "assets" under the Explanation to Section 18 . This assumes significance in view of the language used in Sections 18 and 25 in

¶95

Page 13 of 23

¶96

In the National Company Law Tribunal Division Bench, (Court-I), Kolkata

¶97

IA (IBC) (PLAN) No. 36/ (KB) /2025 In CP(IB) No. 243/( KB) /2023 contrast to the language employed in Section 20. Section 18 speaks about the duties of the interim resolution professional and Section 25 speaks about the duties of resolution professional. These two provisions use the word "assets", while Section 20(1) uses the word "property" together with the word "value". Sections 18 and 25 do not use the expression "property". Another important aspect is that Under Section 25(2)(b) of IBC, 2016, the resolution professional is obliged to represent and act on behalf of the corporate debtor with third parties and exercise rights for the benefit of the corporate debtor in judicial, quasijudicial and arbitration proceedings. Section 25(1) and 25(2)(b) reads as follows:

¶98

25. Duties of resolution professional -

¶99

(1) It shall be the duty of the resolution professional to preserve and protect the assets of the corporate debtor, including the continued business operations of the corporate debtor.

¶100

(2) For the purposes of Sub-section (1), the resolution professional shall undertake the following actions: (a).............

¶101

(b) represent and act on behalf of the corporate debtor with third parties, exercise rights for the benefit of the corporate debtor in judicial, quasi judicial and arbitration proceedings .

¶102

This shows that wherever the corporate debtor has to exercise rights in judicial, quasi-judicial proceedings, the resolution professional cannot short-circuit the same and bring a claim before NCLT taking advantage of Section 60(5).

¶103

40. Therefore in the light of the statutory scheme as culled out from various provisions of the IBC, 2016 it is clear that wherever the corporate debtor has to exercise a right that falls outside the purview of the IBC, 2016 especially in the realm of the public law, they cannot, through the resolution professional, take a bypass and go before NCLT for the enforcement of such a right .”

¶104

(Emphasis Added)

¶105

The reliefs sought for subsisting contracts/agreements can be granted, and no blanket orders can be granted in the absence of the parties to the contracts and agreements.

¶106

Page 14 of 23

¶107

In the National Company Law Tribunal Division Bench, (Court-I), Kolkata IA (IBC) (PLAN) No. 36/ (KB) /2025 In CP(IB) No. 243/( KB) /2023

¶108

3. Concerning the waivers with regard to the extinguishment of claims which arose prior to the initiation of the CIR Process and which have not been claimed are granted in terms of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ghanashyam Mishra and Sons Private Limited vs. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited reported in MANU/SC/0273/2021: (2021)9SCC657: [2021]13SCR737 , wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that

¶109

“ once a resolution plan is duly approved by the Adjudicating Authority under sub-section (1) of section 31, the claims as provided in the resolution plan shall stand frozen and will be binding on the Corporate Debtor and its employees, members, creditors, including the Central Govt., any State Govt. or any local authority, guarantors and other stakeholders .”

¶110

(Emphasis Added)

¶111

Further, the relevant part of the Ghanshyam Mishra judgment (supra) in this regard is reproduced below:

¶112

“61. All these details are required to be contained in the information memorandum so that the resolution applicant is aware, as to what are the liabilities, that he may have to face and provide for a plan, which apart from satisfying a part of such liabilities would also ensure, that the Corporate Debtor is revived and made a running establishment. The legislative intent of making the resolution plan binding on all the stakeholders after it gets the seal of approval from the Adjudicating Authority upon its satisfaction, that the resolution plan approved by CoC meets the requirement as referred to in Subsection (2) of Section 30 is, that after the approval of the resolution plan, no surprise claims should be flung on the successful resolution applicant. The dominant purpose is, that he should start with fresh slate on the basis of the resolution plan approved.’

¶113

“62. This aspect has been aptly explained by this Court in the case of Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Limited through Authorised Signatory (supra).’

¶114

“107. For the same reason, the impugned NCLAT judgment [Standard Chartered Bank v. Satish Kumar Gupta] in holding that claims that may exist apart from those decided on merits by the resolution professional and by the Adjudicating

¶115

Page 15 of 23

¶116

In the National Company Law Tribunal Division Bench, (Court-I), Kolkata

¶117

IA (IBC) (PLAN) No. 36/ (KB) /2025 In CP(IB) No. 243/( KB) /2023

¶118

Authority/Appellate Tribunal can now be decided by an appropriate forum in terms of Section 60(6) of the Code, also militates against the rationale of Section 31 of the Code. A successful resolution applicant cannot suddenly be faced with "undecided" claims after the resolution plan submitted by him has been accepted as this would amount to a hydra head popping up which would throw into uncertainty amounts payable by a prospective resolution applicant who would successfully take over the business of the corporate debtor. All claims must be submitted to and decided by the resolution professional so that a prospective resolution applicant knows exactly what has to be paid in order that it may then take over and run the business of the corporate debtor. This the successful resolution applicant does on a fresh slate, as has been pointed out by us hereinabove. For these reasons, NCLAT judgment must also be set aside on this count .”

¶119

In this regard, we would also rely on the judgement of Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan in the matter of EMC v. State of Rajasthan, Civil Writ Petition No. 6048/2020 with 6204/2020 reported in (2023) ibclaw.in 42 HC wherein it has been inter-alia held that

¶120

“ Law is well-settled that with the finalization of insolvency resolution plan and the approval thereof by the NCLT, all dues of creditors, Corporate, Statutory and others stand extinguished and no demand can be raised for the period prior to the specified date. ”

¶121

Thus on the date of approval of resolution plan by the Adjudicating Authority, all such claims, which are not a part of resolution plan, shall stand extinguished and no person will be entitled to initiate or continue any proceedings in respect to a claim, which is not part of the resolution plan as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ghanashyam Mishra supra. The Hon’ble Supreme Court also held that all the dues including the statutory dues owed to the Central Govt, any State Govt or any local authority, if not part of the resolution plan, shall stand extinguished and no proceedings in respect of such dues for the period prior to the date on which the Adjudicating Authority grants its approval under section 31 could be continued.

¶122

Page 16 of 23

¶123

In the National Company Law Tribunal Division Bench, (Court-I), Kolkata IA (IBC) (PLAN) No. 36/ (KB) /2025 In CP(IB) No. 243/( KB) /2023

¶124

With respect to the waivers sought in relation to guarantors, we seek to place reliance on the judgment of Lalit Kumar Jain v. Union of India reported in MANU/SC/0352/2021: (2021) 9 SCC 321: (2021) ibclaw.in 61 SC , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held in para 133 that sanction of a resolution plan and finality imparted to it by section 31 does not per se operate as a discharge of the guarantor’s liability shall apply.

¶125

Further, we would rely upon the judgment rendered by the NCLAT in Roshan Lal Mittal v. Rishabh Jain reported in (2023) ibclaw.in 803 NCLAT that:

¶126

“ The Resolution Plan does not absolve the personal guarantors from their guarantee. The law well settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of “Lalit Kumar Jain vs. Union of India & Ors. – (2021) 9 SCC 321), that by approval of resolution plan the guarantees are not ipso facto discharged .”

¶127

(Emphasis Added)

¶128

With respect to the reliefs and waivers sought for all inquiries, litigations, investigations and proceedings shall be granted strictly as per the section 32A of the Code and the provisions of the law as may be applicable.

¶129

In this context, we would note that upon the approval of the Resolution Plan, the Corporate Debtor avails the limbs of new management to revive its business. Thus, all the past liabilities of the Corporate Debtor including criminal liability prior to the initiation of the CIR Process shall stand effaced and the new management will step into the shoes of the company with a fresh or clean slate. Hence, the old management shall be liable to face all the offences committed prior to the commencement of the CIR Process. At this juncture, we would rely upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ajay Kumar Radheyshyam Goenka vs. Tourism Finance Corporation of

¶130

Page 17 of 23

¶131

In the National Company Law Tribunal Division Bench, (Court-I), Kolkata

¶132

IA (IBC) (PLAN) No. 36/ (KB) /2025 In CP(IB) No. 243/( KB) /2023

¶133

India Ltd. reported in MANU/SC/0244/2023: (2023) 10 SCC 545 that:

¶134

“67. Thus, Section 32A broadly leads to:

¶135

a. Extinguishment of the criminal liability of the corporate debtor, if the control of the corporate debtor goes in the hands of the new management which is different from the original old management .

¶136

b. The prosecution in relation to "every person who was a "designated partner" as defined in Clause (j) of Section 2 of the Limited Liability Partnership Act 2008 (6 of 2009), or an "officer who is in default", as defined in Clause (60) of Section 2 of the Companies Act. 2013 (18 of 2013), or was in any manner in charge of, or responsible to the corporate debtor for the conduct of its business or associated with the corporate debtor in any manner and who was directly or indirectly involved in the commission of such offence" shall be proceeded and the law will take it’s own course. Only the corporate debtor (with new management) as held in Para 42 of P. Mohanraj will be safeguarded.

¶137

c. If the old management takes over the corporate debtor (for MSME Section 29A does not apply (see 240A), hence for MSME old management can takeover) the corporate debtor itself is also not safeguarded from prosecution Under Section 138 or any other offences .”

¶138

(Emphasis added)

¶139

Further, would also rely on the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the matter of Vasan Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. vs. The Deputy Director of Income Tax (Investigation), Unit 3(2) reported in MANU/TN/0243/2024: (2024) ibclaw.in 80 HC, wherein it was held that:

¶140

“ 9. In the above judgement, the Apex Court after dealing with the provision in detail, came to a categoric conclusion that insofar as the criminal prosecution is concerned, the criminal liability of the corporate debtor viz., company gets completely wiped off and the new management is allowed to take over the company on a clean slate. However, the Apex Court also made it clear that the persons who are involved in the day today affairs of the company and were incharge and responsible for running of the company, will be liable to face all the offence committed prior to the

¶141

Page 18 of 23

¶142

In the National Company Law Tribunal Division Bench, (Court-I), Kolkata

¶143

IA (IBC) (PLAN) No. 36/ (KB) /2025 In CP(IB) No. 243/( KB) /2023 commencement of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process. There is no escape for those persons from criminal liability even though the corporate debtor is given a clean slate and is handed over to the new Management .

¶144

10. Useful reference can also be made to the judgement of the Calcutta High Court in [Tantia Constructions Limited Vs. Krishna Hi-Tech Infrastructure P Ltd] in CRP No. 172 of 2022 . The relevant portions in the order are extracted hereunder :-

¶145

4. For the application of Section 32A of IBC, 2016 and in light of the present matter, it is pertinent to determine the following two issues, i.e.,

¶146

i. Whether the offence as complained in the impugned criminal proceedings has been alleged to be committed before the initiation of corporate insolvency resolution process or during such process?

¶147

ii. Whether the resolution plan has resulted in change in the management or corporate debtor in consonance with the provisions of Section 32A(1) of IBC, 2016?

¶148

5. With respect to Issue No. 1, it is pertinent to note that the corporate insolvency resolution process as against the Petitioner/Corporate Debtor was initiated on 13.03.2019 when the application was accepted and the Order of Moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC, 2016 was imposed by NCLT, Kolkata in the aforementioned case. The complaint that commenced the impugned criminal proceedings was filed on 22.07.2019 before the concerned court by the opposite party. Whereby, said alleged offence so complained, took place before or during the corporate insolvency resolution process and is covered under the ambit of Section 32A of IBC, 2016.

¶149

6. With respect to Issue No. 2, it is observed that the petitioner has not made specific submission in this regard. However, it is the submission of the opposite party that the impugned complaint case does not concern itself with the new directors that were appointed after takeover by the Resolution Applicant in line with the Resolution Plan so approved by NCLT dated 24.02.2022. It is their submission that they are primarily aggrieved by the actions of petitioner when it was in control of erstwhile Directors.

¶150

Page 19 of 23

¶151

In the National Company Law Tribunal Division Bench, (Court-I), Kolkata

¶152

IA (IBC) (PLAN) No. 36/ (KB) /2025 In CP(IB) No. 243/( KB) /2023

¶153

11. The above judgement clearly lays down the law on the subject. The moment the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process is initiated against the corporate debtor and the application is accepted by the NCLT, the moratorium comes into operation. Once the resolution plan is accepted by the NCLT and orders are passed and the Corporate debtor gets into hands of the new management, all the past liabilities including the criminal liability of the Corporate debtor gets wiped off and the new Management takes over the company with clean slate .”

¶154

(Emphasis Added)

¶155

Very recently, the Hon’ble Madras High Court in M/s. Vasan Healthcare Pvt Ltd v. M/s. India Infoline Finance Ltd, Crl O.P. No. 1772 of 2024, reported in (2024) ibclaw.in 700 HC , (hereinafter referred to as ‘Vasan Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. II’) has observed that:

¶156

“ 13. As a result of the above discussion and the law laid in Ajay

¶157

Kumar Radheshyam Goenka case, it is clear that the corporate debtor cannot be prosecuted for the prior liability after the approval of the Resolution Plan. At the same time, it is to be bear in mind the protection under Section 32-A of Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 is restricted only to the Corporate debtor and not to its Directors who were incharge of the affairs of the Company when the offence committed or the signatory of the cheque .”

¶158

(Emphasis Added)

¶159

Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Jaypee Kensington Boulevard Apartments Welfare Association and Ors. vs. NBCC (India) Ltd. and Ors. reported in ( 2022) 1 SCC 401: MANU/SC/0206/2021 at Para 216, has laid down that:

¶160

“ The Adjudicating Authority has limited jurisdiction in the matter of approval of a resolution plan, which is well-defined and circumscribed by Sections 30(2) and 31 of the

¶161

Page 20 of 23

¶162

In the National Company Law Tribunal Division Bench, (Court-I), Kolkata IA (IBC) (PLAN) No. 36/ (KB) /2025 In CP(IB) No. 243/( KB) /2023

¶163

Code. In the adjudicatory process concerning a resolution plan under IBC, there is no scope for interference with the commercial aspects of the decision of the CoC; and there is no scope for substituting any commercial term of the resolution plan approved by Committee of Creditors . … .”

¶164

(Emphasis Added)

¶165

14. Further, in Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Limited vs. Satish Kumar Gupta reported at (2020) 8 SCC 531: MANU/SC/1577/2019, the Hon’ble Apex Court has propounded that:

¶166

“ 38. This Regulation fleshes out Section 30(4) of the Code, making it clear that ultimately it is the commercial wisdom of the Committee of Creditors which operates to approve what is deemed by a majority of such creditors to be the best resolution plan, which is finally accepted after negotiation of its terms by such Committee with prospective resolution applicants .”

¶167

(Emphasis Added)

¶168

Hence, we would infer that if there are any personal guarantors of the corporate debtor, the personal guarantees shall be invoked and an appropriate action against them, in accordance with law, be taken.

¶169

As far as the question of granting time to comply with the statutory obligations/seeking sanctions from governmental authorities is concerned, the Resolution Applicant is directed to do the same within one year as prescribed under section 31(4) of the Code.

¶170

Page 21 of 23

¶171

In the National Company Law Tribunal Division Bench, (Court-I), Kolkata

¶172

IA (IBC) (PLAN) No. 36/ (KB) /2025 In CP(IB) No. 243/( KB) /2023

¶173

In case of non-compliance of this order or withdrawal of Resolution Plan, the CoC shall have the right to forfeit the EMD amount already paid by the Resolution Applicant.

¶174

18. In the light of the enumerations and observations made in this Order supra, we hereby APPROVE the Revised Resolution Plan submitted by Kejriwal Castings Limited (Successful Resolution Applicant) vide Supplementary Affidavit affirmed on 02.06.2026 with a Plan value of Rs.18,05,59,939/- (Rupees Eighteen Crores Five Lakh Fifty-nine Thousand Nine Hundred and Thirty-nine only) . In addition to that, the SRA shall act in accordance with the directions contained in para ‘8’ and para ‘9’ above.

¶175

The Resolution Plan shall form part of this Order and shall be read along with this order for implementation. The Resolution Plan thus approved shall be binding on the Corporate Debtor and all other stakeholders involved in terms of Section 31 of the I&B Code, so that the revival of the Corporate Debtor Company shall come into force with immediate effect without any delay.

¶176

The Resolution Plan is binding on the Corporate Debtor and other stakeholders involved so that revival of the Debtor Company shall come into force with immediate effect.

¶177

The Moratorium imposed under section 14 shall cease to have effect from the date of this order.

¶178

The Resolution Professional shall submit the records collected during the commencement of the proceedings to the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Board of India for their record and also return to the Resolution Applicant or New Promoters.

¶179

Certified copy of this Order be issued on demand to the concerned parties, upon due compliance.

¶180

Liberty is hereby granted for moving any Application if required in connection with implementation of this Resolution Plan.

¶181

A copy of this Order is to be submitted in the Office of the Registrar of Companies, West Bengal.

¶182

Page 22 of 23

¶183

In the National Company Law Tribunal Division Bench, (Court-I), Kolkata

¶184

IA (IBC) (PLAN) No. 36/ (KB) /2025 In CP(IB) No. 243/( KB) /2023

¶185

It is not on record that whether the Financial Creditors have invoked Personal Guarantees or not. It is essential for the purpose of maximization for wealth of the Corporate Debtor, personal guarantees need to be invoked. Therefore, we direct the Financial Creditors to invoke Personal Guarantees, if not already done.

¶186

The Resolution Professional may stand discharged from his duties with effect from the date of this Order, however, he is required to comply with our direction mentioned in Para 30 of the order subject to comply the direction, which the creditors should bear in mind.

¶187

The Resolution Professional shall stand discharged from his duties with effect from the date of this Order.

¶188

The Resolution Professional is further directed to handover all records, premises/factories/documents to the Resolution Applicant to finalise the further line of action required for starting of the operation. The Resolution Applicant shall have access to all the records/premises/factories/documents through the Resolution Professional to finalise the further line of action required for starting of the operation.

¶189

The Registry is directed to send e-mail copies of the order forthwith to all the parties and their Ld. Counsel for information and for taking necessary steps.

¶190

The Interlocutory Application being IA (IB)/(PLAN)/36(KB)2025 along with main Company Petition vide CP(IB) No. 243(KB) /2023 shall stand disposed of accordingly.

¶191