JUDGMENT :

M.M. SUNDRESH, J.

1. A judicial interpretation of Section 29A(h) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code , 2016 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”) as amended by the Act 26 of 2018 is sought from us.

2. We have heard Shri Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General and Mr. Bishwajit Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the Appe1llant and Shri Ranjit Kumar and Shri Parag P. Tripathi, learned senior counsels on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 and 3, respectively. Perused the documents filed by both sides and additionally, we had the benefit of going through the written arguments placed on record.

A BRIEF JOURNEY:

3. M/s. MBL Infrastructures Limited (Respondent No. 1) was set up by one, Mr. Anjanee Kumar Lakhotiya (Respondent No. 3) in the early 1990. Loans/credit facilities were obtained by the Respondent No. 1 from the consortium of banks (State Bank of Mysore now State Bank of India as lead bank), some of who are also arrayed as respondents apart from the appellant. On the failure of the Respondent No. 1 to act in tune with the terms of repayment, some of the respondents were forced to invoke the personal guarantees extended by the Respondent No. 3 for the credit facilities availed by the Respondent No. 1.

4. M/s. RBL Bank issued a notice under Section 13 (2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (‘SARFAESI Act’ for short) after duly invoking the personal guarantee of the Respondent No. 3. This was followed by a similar action at the hands of Respondent No. 8 (M/s Allahabad Bank) and M/s. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur. We are given to understand that M/s. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur got merged with State Bank of India. The aforesaid two proceedings invoking Section 13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act were initiated in the month of February and March, 2013, respectively.

5. On the aforesaid factual setting, M/s. RBL Bank filed an application bearing No. (IB)-170/KB/2017 under Section 7 of the Code before the National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as “adjudicating authority”) to initiate corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) against Respondent No. 1. It was admitted vide order dated 30.03.2017, appointing an Interim Resolution Professional, leading to imposition of moratorium in terms of Section 14 of the Code. After the expiry of the initial period of CIRP, an application was filed by the Resolution Professional for extending the duration of CIRP by an additional 90 days, which was duly granted.

6. Two resolution plans were received by the Resolution Professional (Respondent No. 2 herein) as he then was, of which, one was authored by Respondent No. 3 on 29.06.2017. This was done prior to the introduction of Section 29 A of the Code.

7. A series of meetings took place with the active participation of the Committee of Creditors (CoC) on the resolution plan submitted by the Respondent No. 3 between October 16, 2017 to November 17, 2017. A decision was made in the 9th meeting of the CoC held on 18.11.2017 seeking an appropriate resolution plan at the hands of Respondent No. 3. In tune with the aforesaid directive, the Respondent No. 3 submitted a modified resolution plan on 22.11.2017.

8. Thereafter, by way of the In