Invitation for Expression of Interest and Regulation 36A compliance led to plan rejection; process ordered restarted with fresh Form-G and 90-day timeline.

Failure to publish an amended provisional list and invite objections after extending the EoI timeline breached the mandatory provisional-list/objection mechanism, so a belated EoI and its resolution plan could not be validly considered; consequence: the plan was rightly not approved. The adjudicating authority did not find the late applicant ineligible to submit an EoI. No substantive breach of the CIRP period was found. In the interest of stakeholders, the liquidation direction was set aside and the RP and CoC were directed to restart the resolution process by issuing a fresh Form-G, publish provisional and final lists, and conclude solicitation of plans within 90 days, failing which liquidation may follow.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a Resolution Applicant (SRA) whose name was not included in the final list of Prospective Resolution Applicants (PRAs) could be permitted to submit and have its Resolution Plan considered by the CoC in contravention of Regulation 36A and Regulation 39 of the CIRP Regulations; (ii) Whether the Consortium of Dharmesh Jain (SRA) fulfilled the net-worth eligibility criteria required for submission of EoI; (iii) Whether the CIRP had expired when the Resolution Plan was approved by the CoC; (iv) Reliefs available to the Appellants in view of the findings on the process.

Issue (i): Whether the SRA whose name was not in the final list of PRAs could be permitted to submit and have its Resolution Plan considered by the CoC in contravention of Regulation 36A and Regulation 39 of the CIRP Regulations.

Analysis: Regulation 36A requires issuance of a provisional list within ten days of the last date for submission of EoI, an opportunity to object within five days, and issuance of a final list after considering objections. Regulation 36A(6) rejects EoIs received after the time specified; Regulation 39(1B) bars consideration of plans from persons not appearing in the final list. While Form-G may permit the CoC to extend timelines, statutory steps for issuing provisional/final lists and inviting objections (sub-regs 1012) must be complied with when late EoIs are accepted after extension. The record showed no publication of an amended provisional list and no opportunity for objections after the Consortiums late EoI, hence non-compliance with Regulation 36A sub-regs 1012.

Conclusion: In favour of Respondent. The Tribunal upholds the Adjudicating Authoritys conclusion that the SRAs Plan could not lawfully be considered because the statutory requirements of Regulation 36A were not complied with.

Issue (ii): Whether the Resolution Applicant fulfilled the net-worth eligibility criteria.

Analysis: The Adjudicating Authority noted absence of audited financial statements for the immediate preceding year but did not finally hold the Consortium ineligible; records included net-worth certificates and subsequent affidavits. The Authoritys observations recorded that adequate documentary proof at the EoI stage was lacking, but no conclusive finding of ineligibility under Section 29A or the invitation criteria was recorded.

Conclusion: In favour of Appellant. The Tribunal held that the Adjudicating Authority did not record a finding that the Consortium was ineligible to submit the Resolution Plan.

Issue (iii): Whether the CIRP period had expired when the Resolution Plan was approved by the CoC.

Analysis: The CIRP period had been extended by the Adjudicating Authority until 30.09.2024. The Plan approval and related approvals fell within the extended CIRP timeline; any discrepancy in filing dates did not demonstrate breach of the CIRP period on the material before the Tribunal.

Conclusion: In favour of Appellant. The Tribunal held there was no breach of the CIRP period in the resolution process.

Issue (iv): Reliefs whether and what reliefs the Appellants are entitled to given the procedural infirmities identified.

Analysis: Although the Tribunal upheld the Adjudicating Authoritys rejection of the specific Resolution Plan on the ground of non-compliance with Regulation 36A, the projects nature (large real-estate project with numerous homebuyers) and the interest of stakeholders justified relief short of directing liquidation. The Tribunal examined powers to re-commence CIRP and to exclude pendency periods for a fresh timeline.

Conclusion: In favour of Appellant. The Tribunal modified the impugned order by setting aside the direction to initiate liquidation and directed the RP/CoC to issue a fresh Form-G, recommence the CIRP from issuance of Form-G, complete the process within 90 days (extended by exclusion of pendency periods), and, if not completed, permit the RP to file for liquidation.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal affirmed the Adjudicating Authoritys refusal to approve the impugned Resolution Plan for failure to comply with Regulation 36A, but it set aside the direction to commence liquidation and directed recommencement of the CIRP by issuance of a fresh Form-G with a 90-day timeline to conclude the process; the Resolution Plan approval, if any, is to be filed afresh for adjudication.

Ratio Decidendi: Inclusion of a late Expression of Interest after extension of timelines is permissible only where the Resolution Professional and Committee of Creditors comply with Regulation 36A sub-regulations 1012 by issuing an amended provisional list, inviting and considering objections, and then publishing a final list; failure to follow these statutory steps invalidates consideration of the late applicants Resolution Plan.

---