2021 INSC 0870
1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.3665­3666 OF 2020
NGAITLANG DHAR  ...APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
PANNA PRAGATI INFRASTRUCTURE 
PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS.     .... RESPONDENT(S)
WITH 
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3742­3743 OF 2020
J U D G M E N T  
B.R. GAVAI, J. 
1. Civil   Appeal   Nos.3665­3666   of   2020   are   filed   by
Ngaitlang   Dhar,   the   successful   Resolution   Applicant   (H­1
bidder),   and   Civil   Appeal   Nos.   3742­3743   of   2020   are   filed
by Amit Pareek, the Resolution Professional.
2. These   appeals   assail   the   judgment   and   order
passed   by   the   National   Company   Law   Appellate   Tribunal,

2
New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “the NCLAT”) dated 19 th
October,   2020,   in   Company   Appeal   (AT)   (Insolvency)   Nos.
515 of 2020 and 516 of 2020, thereby allowing the appeals
of the respondent No.1­Panna Pragati Infrastructure Private
Limited   (hereinafter   referred   to   as   “PPIPL”)   and   the
respondent No.2­Arihant International Limited.
3. Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.515 of 2020
was filed assailing the order dated 18 th
 March, 2020, passed
by   the   National   Company   Law   Tribunal,   Guwahati   Bench,
Guwahati   (hereinafter   referred   to   as   “the   NCLT”),   in   I.A.
No.27   of   2020   in   CP   (IB)   No.13/GB/2019,   filed   by   PPIPL
and   another,   by   which   the   application   seeking   direction   to
the   Resolution   Professional   (hereinafter   referred   to   as   “the
RP”)   to   take   on   record   and   consider   its   revised   offer
submitted   by   email   dated   14 th
  February,   2020,   came   to   be
rejected. 
4. Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.516 of 2020
was filed assailing the order dated 18 th
 May, 2020 passed by
the NCLT, in an unnumbered I.A. filed by the RP, vide which

3
the appellant­Ngaitlang Dhar’s (H­1 bidder) Resolution Plan
came to be approved by the NCLT.
5. Vide the impugned judgment and order dated 19 th
October,   2020,   the   NCLAT   has   set   aside   both   the   orders,
dated   18 th
  March,   2020,   and   18 th
  May,   2020,   and   directed
the   Corporate   Insolvency   Resolution   Process   (hereinafter
referred   to   as   “CIRP”)   to   be   resumed   from   the   stage   of
consideration of the Resolution Plans. 
6. The   facts   in   brief   giving   rise   to   the   present
appeals are as under:
7. An   application   being   CP(IB)   No.13/GB/2019
came   to   be   filed   under   Section   7   of   the   Insolvency   and
Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as “the IBC”)
for initiation of CIRP in respect of Meghalaya Infratech Ltd.
(hereinafter   referred   to   as   “the   Corporate   Debtor”)   by   the
Allahabad   Bank   (now   known   as   Indian   Bank)   (hereinafter
referred to as “the Allahabad Bank”).     The NCLT vide order
dated 28 th
  August, 2019 admitted the petition and as such,
the   CIRP   came   to   be   initiated   in   respect   of   the   Corporate

4
Debtor   and   Mr.   Amit   Pareek   came   to   be   appointed   as   the
Interim   RP,   who   was   subsequently   confirmed   as   the   RP   in
the   first   Committee   of   Creditors   (“hereinafter   referred   to   as
“the CoC”) meeting, held on 25 th
 September, 2019.  
8. It is  not  in  dispute  that  the   Allahabad  Bank  and
the   Corporation   Bank   (now   known   as   Union   Bank)
(hereinafter referred to as “the Corporation Bank”) were the
only financial creditors.
9. In   accordance   with   the   provisions   of   the   IBC,
Expression of Interest (hereinafter referred to as “EOI”) was
invited   from   the   prospective   Resolution   Applicants   by   the
RP.  
10. Appellant­Ngaitlang   Dhar,   respondent   No.1­
PPIPL,   Mr.   Abhishek   Agarwal   and   Mr.   Ashish   Jaisasaria
submitted   their   EOI.     All   the   four   Resolution   Applicants
submitted their Resolution Plans.   In the CoC meeting held
on   11­12 th
  February,   2020,   the   appellant­Ngaitlang   Dhar
emerged   as   H­1   bidder,   whereas   Mr.   Abhishek   Agarwal
emerged as H­2 bidder.  

5
11. At the 7 th
  CoC meeting, held on 6 th
  March, 2020,
the CoC, with a 100% voting share, approved the Resolution
Plan   of   the   appellant­Ngaitlang   Dhar   (H­1   bidder),   which
was   further   approved   by   the   NCLT   vide   order   dated   18 th
May, 2020.
12. The respondent No.1­PPIPL contended that in the
proceedings before the CoC held on 11­12 th
 February, 2020,
it had sought for one or two days’ time to submit its revised
Resolution Plan, and accordingly, it submitted the same on
14 th
  February,   2020.     The   respondent   No.1­PPIPL,
accordingly,   filed   I.A.   No.   27   of   2020   in   CP(IB)
No.13/GB/2019 before the NCLT, seeking a direction to the
RP to take on record its revised Resolution Plan, dated 14 th
February,   2020.     The   same   came   to   be   rejected   by   the
NCLT, vide order dated 18 th
 March, 2020.  The RP thereafter
filed an unnumbered I.A. seeking approval to the Resolution
Plan   submitted   by   the   appellant­Ngaitlang   Dhar   (H­1
bidder). The said unnumbered I.A. was allowed by the NCLT
vide order dated 18 th
 May, 2020.  Both these orders came to

6
be   challenged   before   the   NCLAT   by   way   of   aforesaid
Company Appeals by the respondent No.1­PPIPL.  As stated
above,   by   the   impugned   judgment   and   order   dated   19 th
October,   2020,   the   appeals   were   allowed.     Being   aggrieved
thereby, the present appeals are filed before this Court. 
13. We   have   heard   Shri   Mukul   Rohatgi,   learned
Senior   Counsel   appearing   on   behalf   of   the   appellant­
Ngaitlang   Dhar,   the   successful   Resolution   Applicant   (H­1
bidder) and Shri Abhijeet Sinha, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the respondent No.1­PPIPL.
14. Shri   Mukul   Rohatgi,   learned   Senior   Counsel
appearing   on   behalf   of   Ngaitlang   Dhar,   the   successful
Resolution Applicant (H­1 bidder), submitted that the entire
approach adopted by the NCLAT in the impugned judgment
and   order   was   erroneous.     He   submitted   that   the   NCLAT
ought   to   have   taken   into   consideration   that   the   CoC   after
exercising   its   ‘commercial   wisdom’   has   resolved   to   accept
the   Resolution   Plan   submitted   by   Ngaitlang   Dhar.     He
submitted that the RP had given an equal opportunity to all

7
the   bidders/resolution   applicants.     He   submitted   that
though adequate opportunity was given to all the Resolution
Applicants   by   adjourning   the   proceedings   in   CoC   meetings
on   number   of   occasions,   the   respondent   No.1­PPIPL   failed
to revise its bid within the stipulated period.   He submitted
that   the   CoC,   in   its   meeting,   held   on   11­12 th
  February,
2020,   had   resolved   to   declare   Ngaitlang   Dhar   as   the
successful   resolution   applicant.     He   submitted   that,   not
only   that,   thereafter   the   NCLT   had   also   allowed   the
application filed by the RP to approve the Resolution Plan of
Ngaitlang Dhar.
15. Shri   Rohatgi   submitted   that   it   is   only   after   12 th
February,   2020,   the   respondent   No.1­PPIPL,   on   14 th
February,   2020,   had   sent   an   email   to   the   RP,   revising   its
offer   to   Rs.65.65   crore.     He   submitted   that   when   an   initial
offer   given   by   the   respondent   No.1­PPIPL   was   only   of
making   an   upfront   payment   of   Rs.24   crore,   it   is   clear   that
the revised offer of Rs.65.65 crore was only with a  mala fide
intention of protracting the proceedings.  He submitted that

8
the   NCLAT   ought   not   to   have   interfered   with   the
‘commercial   wisdom’   of   the   CoC.     In   this   respect,   he   relies
on various judgments of this Court.  
16. Shri  Rohatgi further  submits  that  the  Resolution
Plan of Ngaitlang Dhar now stands implemented, inasmuch
as the dues of  all  the Banks  (financial creditors) have been
repaid   and   now   the   Corporate   Debtor,   i.e.,   Meghalaya
Infratech Ltd. is an on­going concern. 
 
17. Shri   Abhijeet   Sinha,   learned   counsel   appearing
on   behalf   of   the   respondent   No.1­PPIPL   would   submit   that
there   is   a   distinction   between   the   decision   of   the   CoC   and
the   procedure   adopted   by   the   RP   and   the   CoC   to   arrive   at
that decision.   He submitted that though a final decision of
the CoC cannot be a matter of challenge on the ground that
the ‘commercial wisdom’ of the CoC should not be interfered
with,   yet   if   there  is  a   material  irregularity   in   the   procedure
adopted by the RP, an appeal under Section 61(3) of the IBC
would   be   tenable.       He   submitted   that   the   RP   acted   with
undue   haste   in   the   present   matter.     Learned   counsel

9
submitted that in the proceedings of the meeting of the CoC,
held  on  11­12 th
  February,   2020,  the   Director   of  PPIPL,  had
sought one or two days’ time to submit its revised offer.  He
submitted that, however, the said time was not granted.  He
further   submitted   that   the   revised   offer   was   submitted
within two days and it was the duty of the RP to present its
revised   offer   before   the   CoC.       Having   not   done   that   and
having   hastily   approved   the   plan   of   Ngaitlang   Dhar,   the
NCLAT   has   rightly   interfered   with   the   decision   of   the   CoC.
In   this   respect,   he   relies   on   the   judgment   of   this   Court   in
the   case   of   Pratap   Technocrats   (P)   Ltd.   and   others   v.
Monitoring Committee of Reliance Infratel Limited and
another 1
.
18. Shri Sinha further submitted that when the NCLT
itself   had   extended   the   period   of   CIRP   by   another   90   days
beyond   180   days   vide   order   dated   26 th
  February,   2020,
there was no reason for the RP to have hastily accepted the
bid of Ngaitlang Dhar.  
1  2021 SCC OnLine SC 569

10
19. Learned   counsel   appearing   on   behalf   of   the
respondents   –   Banks   (the   financial   creditors)   also   support
the arguments of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of
Ngaitlang Dhar.   They submit that the Banks have received
the   entire   payment   that   was   owed   to   them.     It   is   further
submitted that the email dated 14 th
  February, 2020 sent by
PPIPL   was   also   endorsed   to   the   Allahabad   Bank   as   well   as
the Corporation Bank.   It is submitted that both the Banks
had refused to consider the said offer inasmuch as such an
offer was not valid in law.  
20. The facts are not in dispute in the present matter.
21. Vide   order   dated   28 th
  August,   2019,   the
application  filed   by   Allahabad   Bank  under   Section   7   of   the
IBC for initiation of CIRP in respect of the Corporate Debtor
came to be allowed.   Vide the said order dated 28 th
  August,
2019, Mr. Amit Pareek came to be appointed as the Interim
RP.  
22. The interim RP, in compliance with Section 15 of
the IBC, made public announcement calling for claims from

11
creditors   of   the   Corporate   Debtor.     Upon   receipt   of   claims
from   the   creditors,   the   CoC   came   to   be   formed   on   17 th
September,   2019.     Thereafter,   in   the   first   meeting   of   the
CoC, held on 25 th
  September, 2019, the Interim RP came to
be appointed as the RP.  Thereafter, the RP invited EOI from
the   prospective   Resolution   Applicants.     Four   EOIs   came   to
be received from (a) PPIPL & others; (b) Mr. Ngaitlang Dhar;
(c)   Mr.   Abhishek   Agarwal;   and   (d)   Mr.   Ashish   Jaisasaria   &
others.     The   provisional   list   of   Resolution   Applicants   came
to   be   published   and   objections   to   the   provisional   list   were
invited   by   25 th
  December,   2019.     Since   no   objection   in
respect of any of the prospective Resolution Applicants was
received,   a   final   list   of   prospective   Resolution   Applicants
was placed before the CoC for evaluation.  Thereafter, all the
Resolution   Applicants   were   invited   to   submit   their
respective   Resolution   Plans   by   24 th
  January,   2020.     In
response   to   that,   four   Resolution   Plans   were   received   from
the four prospective Resolution Applicants. 

12
23. The   5 th
  meeting   of   the   CoC   was   held   on   11 th
February,   2020.     The   minutes   of   the   said   meeting,
particularly Agenda No.6, would reveal that the RP informed
the   CoC   that   there   were   numerous   anomalies   and
deficiencies   observed   in   the   Resolution   Plan   of   PPIPL   and
the same was intimated to the Resolution Applicant through
email   dated   30 th
  January,   2020   with   a   request   to
rectify/correct   the   same   and   submit   the   same   by   1 st
February, 2020.   However, PPIPL had failed to do so within
the stipulated period.   It would further reveal that an email
dated   1 st
  February,   2020,   was   received   from   PPIPL   with   a
request  to  grant  time  for  submission  of  rectified Resolution
Plan   by   3 rd
  February,   2020.     Accordingly,   the   rectified
Resolution   Plan   came   to   be   filed   by   PPIPL   on   3 rd
  February,
2020.     In   the   said   meeting,   the   CoC   evaluated   the
Resolution   Plans   of   all   the   four   prospective   Resolution
Applicants.   Paragraph   5   of   the   consideration   of   the
proposed Resolution Plan of PPIPL reads thus: 
“5. The CoC  requested  PRA  to  improve
their   bid   amount   the   PRA   refused   to   do

13
so   unless   individual   score   of   all
disclosed   further   for   increase   of   the   bid
amount   he   has   to   discuss   with   BOD   of
the applicant”
24. It   would   further   reveal   that   the   CoC   continued
the second round of negotiation after a lunch break.   It will
be relevant to refer to the following excerpt of the minutes of
the meeting of the CoC dated 11 th
 February, 2020:
“2. The   CoC   decided   to   invite   Panna
Pragati   Infrastructure   Pvt.   Ltd.   for
further   negotiation.     The   RP   informed
that in first round of negotiation the PRA
has   not   revised   their   bid   amount   and
informed the CoC about the brief details
of   plan.     The   PRA   also   want   to   know
about   the   basis   of   score,   the   RP   &   CoC
informed   at   this   mature   stage   of   CIRP
this   is   not   the   right   time   and   place   to
discuss   about   the   evaluation   and   also
informed   that   the   evaluation   has   been
done   as   per   the   RFRP,   IM   &   evaluation
matrix   which   has   been   circulated   to   all
the PRA in due time.
3. The   CoC   &   RP   informed   the   PRA
about   the   anomalies   &   deficiency   in   the
rectified   Resolution   Plan   submitted   by
them   still   persist   despite   of   given   them
opportunity   earlier   after   the   submission
of   original   resolution   plan   for   the
rectification.  The PRA requested to allow
some more time for  the rectification and

14
submit   revise   plan.     The   casual
approach of PRA noted.
4.  The   CoC   requested   to   improve   the
bid   amount   to   the   PRA,   the   PRA   states
that at this stage we will not increase the
bid amount”
25. The minutes of the 5 th
  meeting  of the CoC would
further reveal that  the  CoC thereafter invited Ngaitlang Dhar
for negotiation of the bid and requested him to enhance the
bid   amount.     Ngaitlang   Dhar   agreed   to   enhance   the   bid
amount from Rs.63 crore to Rs.64 crore.     Thereafter again,
the representative of PPIPL returned back and requested to
adjourn   the   meeting   for   a   few   days.     The   said   request   was
specifically rejected by  the  CoC informing the representative
of PPIPL that they were bound to follow the IBC timeline and
wanted   to   conclude   the   matter   by   next   day.     The   said   5 th
meeting of  the  CoC was adjourned to next day and was held
on   12 th
  February,   2020.     The   minutes   of   the   said   meeting
would   further   reveal   that   the   representative   of   PPIPL   had
informed   the   CoC/RP   that   the   Directors   of   their   Company
will   not   be   available   for   the   meeting   to   be   held   on   12 th

15
February, 2020 and the meeting should be deferred by  one
or   two   days.     The   minutes   of   the   meeting   would   further
reveal that all the prospective Resolution Applicants present
in   the   meeting   sought   clarification   from   the   CoC   members
and   the   RP   about   the   status   of   Resolution   Applicant,   who
was   absent   in   the   meeting,   as   to   whether   it   would   be
allowed to participate in the further bidding process or not.
The   CoC   members   specifically   replied   that   since   they   were
at the neck of the timeline (i.e. 180 days were to get over on
24 th
  February,   2020),   it   was   decided   to   exclude   the
respondent   No.1­PPIPL,   who   was   not   present   in   the   said
meeting.     The   proceedings   commenced   after   lunch   break,
wherein   only   two   prospective   Resolution   Applicants,   i.e.,
Ngaitlang   Dhar   and   Mr.   Abhishek   Agarwal   were   present.
Thereafter,   the   CoC   adopted   Swiss   Challenge   open   bidding
method.     In   the   said   bidding   process,   both   prospective
Resolution   Applicants   present   increased   their   offer.     In   the
said   open   bidding   process   between   the   two   prospective
Resolution Applicants present, Ngaitlang Dhar was found to

16
be   the   highest   bidder/prospective   Resolution   Applicant
having   offered   the   bid   of   an   upfront   amount   of   Rs.64.30
crore   plus   CIRP   costs.     The   said   Resolution   Plan   of
Ngaitlang   Dhar   was   approved   unanimously   by   Allahabad
Bank   having   68.34%   voting   rights   and   the   Corporation
Bank having 31.66% voting rights.  
26. It   is   thus   clear   that   the   respondent   No.1­PPIPL
was   very   much   aware   that   the   CoC   has   decided   to   finalise
the proceedings by 12 th
 February, 2020.  It is also clear that
though   PPIPL   was   first   called  upon   by   the   CoC   to   enhance
the   bid   amount,   it   had   specifically   rejected   the   same.     It
insisted on disclosing the basis of score.  In the proceedings
of   the   5 th
  meeting   of   the   CoC   dated   11 th
  February,   2020,
post   lunch,   though   Ngaitlang   Dhar   had   enhanced   his   bid
from Rs.63 crore to Rs.64 crore, the representative of PPIPL
subsequently   came   and   requested   for   adjourning   the
meeting   for   few   days.     The   said   request   was   specifically
rejected by  the  CoC by informing the representative of PPIPL
that   it   had to adhere to the IBC timeline and would have to

17
conclude the matter by next day.  On the next day, i.e., 12 th
February, 2020, when the adjourned proceedings of the CoC
were   held,   the   respondent   No.1­PPIPL   had   sent   an   email,
stating therein that the Directors of its Company will not be
available   for   the   said   meeting   and   requested   for   deferring
the   meeting   by   a   day   or   two.     On   the   insistence   of   all   the
prospective Resolution Applicants present,   the   CoC clarified
that since the timeline was coming to an end, it had decided
to   exclude   the   prospective   Resolution   Applicants   who   were
not   present   in   the   said   meeting.     In   the   said   meeting,
Ngaitlang   Dhar   came   to   be   declared   as   the   highest   bidder
after he improved his bid in the open bidding held between
him and Mr. Abhishek Agarwal.   
27. It   could   thus   be   seen   that   the   RP   as   well   as   the
CoC   had   acted   in   a   totally   transparent   manner.     An   equal
opportunity   was   accorded   to   all   the   prospective   Resolution
Applicants.     However,   the   respondent   No.1­PPIPL,   without
improving his bid amount, went on insisting for more time,
which request was specifically rejected by  the  CoC.  

18
28. Shri   Abhijeet   Sinha,   learned   counsel,   fairly
concedes   that   though   the   final   decision   of   the   CoC   would
not   be   challenged   on   the   ground   that   the   ‘commercial
wisdom’ of   the   CoC should not be interfered with, it is only
the   process  of   decision   making,  which   can   be   challenged  if
there is any material irregularity in the said proceedings. 
29. As   already   discussed   hereinabove,   we   find   that
the   procedure   adopted   by   the   RP   as   well   as   the   CoC   was
fair,   transparent   and   equitable.     The   CoC   was   facing   the
timeline,   which   was   to   end   on   24 th
  February,   2020,   before
which it had to finalise its decision.  In these circumstances,
it cannot be said that the decision of   the   CoC, to not grant
any   further   time   to   PPIPL   for   submission   of   its   revised   bid
and   to   finalise   the   Resolution   Plan   on   12 th
  February,   2020
itself,   can   be   said   to   be   falling   in   the   category   of   the   term
‘material irregularity’.  
30. We have extracted the minutes of the proceedings
of   the   5 th
  meeting   of   the   CoC   in   extenso.     It   could   be   seen

19
that   the   CoC,   after   due   deliberations,   evaluated   all   the
proposed Resolution Plans submitted by  all the prospective
Resolution Applicants and after giving sufficient opportunity
to   all   the   prospective   Resolution   Applicants,   arrived   at   a
considerate decision of accepting the Resolution Plan of the
appellant­Ngaitlang   Dhar   in   its   meeting   held   on   11­12 th
February, 2020.  
31. It is trite law that ‘commercial wisdom’ of  the  CoC
has   been   given   paramount   status   without   any   judicial
intervention,   for   ensuring   completion   of   the   processes
within   the   timelines   prescribed   by   the   IBC.     It   has   been
consistently   held   that   it   is   not   open   to   the   Adjudicating
Authority (the NCLT) or the Appellate Authority (the NCLAT)
to   take   into   consideration   any   other   factor   other   than   the
one specified in Section 30(2) or Section 61(3) of the IBC.  It
has   been   held   that   the   opinion   expressed   by   the   CoC   after
due   deliberations   in   the   meetings   through   voting,   as   per
voting   shares,   is   the   collective   business   decision   and   that
the   decision   of   the   CoC’s   ‘commercial   wisdom’   is   non­

20
justiciable,   except   on   limited   grounds   as   are   available   for
challenge   under   Section   30(2)   or   Section   61(3)   of   the   IBC.
This   position   of   law   has   been   consistently   reiterated   in   a
catena of judgments of this Court, including: 
(i) K.   Sashidhar   v.   Indian   Overseas   Bank   and
Others 2
(ii) Committee   of   Creditors   of   Essar   Steel   India
Limited Through Authorized Signatory v. Satish
Kumar Gupta and Others 3
,
(iii) Maharashtra   Seamless   Limited   v.
Padmanabhan Venkatesh and others 4
,
(iv) Kalpraj   Dharamshi   and   Another   v.   Kotak
Investment Advisors Limited and Another 5
.
(v) Ghanashyam   Mishra   and   Sons   Private   Limited
Through   the   Authorized   Signatory   v.   Edelweiss
Asset Reconstruction Company Limited Through
the Director & Ors. 6
 
2   (2019) 12 SCC 150
3   (2020) 8 SCC 531
4   (2020) 11 SCC 467
5  ( 2021) SCC OnLine SC 204
6  (2021) 9 SCC 657

21
32. No doubt that, under Section 61(3)(ii) of the IBC,
an   appeal   would   be   tenable   if   there   has   been   material
irregularity   in   exercise   of   the   powers   by   the   RP   during   the
corporate   insolvency   resolution   period.     However,   as
discussed   hereinabove,   we   do   not   find   any   material
irregularity.   
33. We   may   gainfully   refer   to   the   following
observations   of   this   Court   in   the   case   of   Keshardeo
Chamria   v.   Radha   Kissen   Chamria   and   others 7
  while
considering the scope of the words ‘material irregularity’, as
are   found   in   Section   115   of   the   Code   of   Civil   Procedure,
1908:
“Reference   may   also   be   made   to   the   ob ­
servations of Bose, J. in his order of ref ­
erence   in   Narayan   Sonaji   v.   Sheshrao
Vithoba   [AIR   1948   Nag   258]   wherein   it
was   said   that   the   words   “illegally”   and
“material irregularity” do not cover either
errors of fact or law. They do not refer to
the decision arrived at but to the manner
in   which   it   is   reached.   The   errors   con ­
templated   relate   to   material   defects   of
procedure and not to errors of either law
7  (1953) 4 SCR 136

22
or fact after the formalities which the law
prescribes have been complied with.”
34. In   the   present   case,   leave   apart,   there   being   any
‘material   irregularity’,   there   has   been   no   ‘irregularity’   at   all
in   the   process   adopted   by   the   RP   as   well   as   the   CoC.     On
the contrary, if the  CoC  would have permitted the PPIPL to
participate   in   the   process,   despite   it   assuring   the   other
three   prospective   Resolution   Applicants   in   its   meeting   held
on   11­12 th
  February,   2020,   that   the   absentee   prospective
Resolution   Applicant   (PPIPL)   would   be   excluded   from
participation, it could have been said to be an irregularity in
the procedure followed. 
35. Insofar   as   the   contention   of   the   learned   counsel,
Shri   Abhijeet   Sinha,   that   the   NCLT   had   already   extended
the CIRP period by 90 days vide order dated 26 th
  February,
2020   and   therefore,   there   was   no   necessity   to   hastily
approve   the   Resolution   Plan   of   Ngaitlang   Dhar   on   12 th
February,   2020,   is   concerned,   we   find   the   same   to   be
without   substance.     It   will   be   relevant   to   mention   that   the

23
period   of   180   days   was   to   expire   on   24 th
  February,   2020,
and   therefore,   in   the   meeting   dated   12 th
  February,   2020
itself,   the   CoC   after   resolving   to   declare   Ngaitlang   Dhar   as
H­1   bidder   had   resolved   to   authorise   the   RP   to   seek   an
extension of CIRP period before the NCLT.  
36. It   will   be   relevant   to   refer   to   paragraph   2   of   the
order dated 26 th
 February, 2020 passed by the NCLT, which
reads thus:
“2. It   is   the   submission   of   the   RP   that
the   CoC   in   its   5 th
  meeting   held   on
11.02.2020   concluded   on   12.02.2020
declared   one   Mr.   N.   Dhar   as   highest
bidder and the said decision of the  CoC
is  under   consideration  for   approval   with
the   higher   authority   of   the   CoC   and,
therefore, prayed for further extension of
CIRP   period   to   90   days   with   effect   from
25.02.2020”
37. It could  thus be seen that the contention in that
regard   is   also   without   substance.     It   is   further   to   be   noted
that, as has been consistently held by this Court in catena
of   judgments,   referred   to   hereinabove,   the   dominant
purpose   of   the   IBC   is   revival   of   the   Corporate   Debtor   and

24
making it an on­going concern. In the present case, the said
purpose is already achieved, inasmuch as all the dues of the
financial   creditors,   i.e.,   the   Allahabad   Bank   and   the
Corporation   bank,   have   already   been   paid,   and   the
Corporate Debtor, in respect of which CIRP was initiated, is
now an on­going concern.  
38. We are, therefore, of the considered view that the
NCLAT   has   grossly   erred   in   interfering   with   the   decision   of
the   CoC,   which   was   duly   approved   by   the   NCLT.     The
appeals   are,   therefore,   allowed.     The   impugned   judgment
and order passed by the NCLAT, dated 19 th
 October, 2020 is
quashed and set aside. There shall be no order as to costs.
All pending applications shall stand disposed of. 
…….…....................., J.
                             [L. NAGESWARA RAO]
…….…....................., J.
                                                 [B.R. GAVAI]
NEW DELHI;
DECEMBER 17, 2021