Resolution plan eligibility under Section 29A turns on the submission date; a resolved NPA cannot revive disqualification.

Eligibility under Section 29A(c) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code must be tested on the date of submission of the resolution plan; a past NPA that was already resolved under an approved plan, with earlier dues extinguished, cannot later be relied on to disqualify a bidder. On the facts stated, the appellant was not an NPA on the relevant date, and no subsisting control over an NPA account was shown. Section 29A(j) did not apply because the alleged connected-person disqualification under clause (c) failed, and no independent basis for derivative ineligibility was established. The impugned disqualification findings were set aside and the appellant was held eligible to participate in the CIRP.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellant was ineligible under Section 29A(c) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 on account of an alleged past NPA and shortfall relating to another corporate debtor; (ii) Whether the appellant was ineligible under Section 29A(j) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 on the basis of the alleged ineligibility of its connected person.

Issue (i): Whether the appellant was ineligible under Section 29A(c) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 on account of an alleged past NPA and shortfall relating to another corporate debtor.

Analysis: The relevant point of time for testing disqualification under Section 29A(c) is the date of submission of the resolution plan. A past NPA that had already been resolved under an approved resolution plan, with the earlier dues extinguished and the corporate debtor operating on a clean slate, cannot be resurrected to deny eligibility later. The appellant was not itself an NPA on the date of submission of its plan, and the material did not show that its connected person was then managing or controlling any subsisting NPA account.

Conclusion: The appellant was not ineligible under Section 29A(c).

Issue (ii): Whether the appellant was ineligible under Section 29A(j) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 on the basis of the alleged ineligibility of its connected person.

Analysis: Section 29A(j) operates only if a connected person is independently disqualified under clauses (a) to (i). Once the supposed disqualification under Section 29A(c) was found unsustainable, the derivative disqualification under Section 29A(j) also could not survive. The record also did not establish any material connection between the appellant or its connected person and the prior resolved corporate debtor so as to attract the bar.

Conclusion: The appellant was not ineligible under Section 29A(j).

Final Conclusion: The disqualification findings were unsustainable, the impugned orders were set aside, and the appellant was held eligible to participate in the corporate insolvency resolution process with its resolution plan to be processed in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Eligibility under Section 29A(c) must be assessed with reference to the date of submission of the resolution plan, and a previously resolved NPA with extinguished dues cannot form the basis of disqualification thereafter.

---