NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL

COURT-V, MUMBAI BENCH

205. IA/1505/2021 IA/4423/2025 C.P. (IB)/2803(MB)2019

IN THE MATTER OF

Bank of India

Vs

M/S. TD Toll Road Pvt Ltd

U/s 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016

Order Delivered on 08.12.2025

CORAM:

SH. MOHAN PRASAD TIWARI SH. CHARANJEET SINGH GULATI

MEMBER (J) MEMBER (T)

Appearance through VC/Physical/Hybrid Mode:

For the Applicant in IA/4423/2025: - Adv. Chirag Kamdar, Adv. Bhanu Chopra,

Adv. Deepak Deshmukh (PH)

For the Respondent in IA/4423/2025: - Adv. Rohit Gupta a/w Adv. Bhakti Chandan

i/b Mulla & Mulla UBC (R 8)

For CoC (Except Canara Bank)

In IA No.4423 of 2025:- Adv. T.Ravichandran (VC)

_____________________________________________________________________

ORDER the CoC and with 100% approval of the CoC he has mandate to seek withdrawal of this IA. The Resolution Professional having made such submission, request that this IA may be allowed to be withdrawn.

IA/1505/2021: - This is the IA filed by the Resolution Professional seeking approval of the Resolution Plan. It is noted that this Resolution Plan seeking approval of the Adjudicating Authority has been filed vide this IA in the year 2021. Today, when the matter was called, the Resolution Professional in person has logged in through VC and submits that even after the approval of this Plan, CoC meetings have taken place. He submits that the 21^st CoC meeting took place on 06.10.2025; 22^nd CoC meeting took place on 04.11.2025, and the last CoC meeting of the CoC which was 23^rd CoC meeting

took place on 02.12.2025.

2. He submits that post the approval of the Resolution Plan, substantial time of nearly 5

years have passed and during this time the Corporate Debtor is being run as a going concern by the Resolution Professional and substantial cash generated is in the accounts of the Corporate Debtor. He submits that due to this factor and various other factors which affect the valuation together with implementation of the Plan were considered by

3. The counsel for the SRA, who has logged in through VC and is present for his IA bearing No. 4423/2025, strongly objects to such request of withdrawal of the IA 1505/2021, by the Resolution Professional. While making submissions, learned counsel for the SRA has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “EBIX SINGAPORE PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. COC in Civil Appeal no. 3224/2020”, decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 13^th September 2021. He stresses on the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court at para nos. 109, 110, 111, 115, 117, 128 and 129, and submits that once the Plan is approved by the CoC, it acquires the shape of a binding contract between the CoC and SRA and, therefore, the CoC/RP cannot have any liberty to withdraw the IA which has been filed seeking approval of the Resolution Plan. He further places reliance on the Judgement of the Hon’ble NCLAT in “Company Appeal no. 370/2021 in the matter of Union Bank of India Vs. Mr. Kapil Wadhawan and Others” and submits that the question before the Hon’ble NCLAT was exactly the same which is getting considered in this case, which resulted from the request of the Resolution Professional seeking withdrawal of this IA. He particularly places reliance on para 9.8 of the said judgment. Learned counsel for the SRA also places reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble NCLAT in the matter of “Swan Energy Limited vs. Chandan Prakash Jain” and stresses on the finding given by the Hon’ble NCLAT at para 48 of the said judgment. Lastly, he places reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble NCLAT in the case of “Hem Singh Bharana Vs. Pawan Doot Estate Private Limited in Company Appeal no. 1481/2022” decided on 05.01.2023, and submits that there is no scope for entertaining the Application under Section 12-A once the Resolution Plan approved by the CoC is placed before the Hon’ble Adjudicating Authority for approval.

4. Learned counsel for the CoC representing 74% of the voting share submits that due to the lapse of substantial time