Resolution plan of KGS Sugar & Infra Corporation submitted by Grainotch Industries Ltd approved

By POONAM GANDHI Company Law Judiciary October 13, 2025

TaxGuru Citation: 2025 taxguru.in 9188
Case Name: In re Pankaj Sham Joshi (NCLT Mumbai)
Appeal Number: Only available for paid members
Date of Judgement/Order: Only available for paid members
Courts: NCLT

Already Upgraded? Log in.

In re Pankaj Sham Joshi (NCLT Mumbai)

NCLT Mumbai held that resolution plan of KGS Sugar & Infra Corporation Pvt. Ltd. as submitted by successful resolution applicant Grainotch Industries Limited meeting requirements of section 30(2) of IBC and Regulations 37, 38, 38(1A) and 39(4) of the CIRP Regulations stands approved.

Facts- The Resolution Professional of KGS Sugar & Infra Corporation Private Limited (“Corporate Debtor”), Mr. Pankaj Sham Joshi (“Resolution Professional” / “Applicant”), has filed an Application bearing IA (IBC) (PLAN) No. 81/2025 in CP(IB) No. 2156/2019 seeking approval of Resolution Plan dated 07.11.2024 read with One Time Amendment dated 25.03.2025 and Addendum dated 02.06.2025 submitted by the Successful Resolution Applicant, Grainotch Industries Limited (“GIL/SRA”) in terms of Section 31 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“Code”) after the approval of Committee of Creditors (“CoC”) of the Corporate Debtor with 99.86% at the 44^th CoC meeting dated 17.06.2025.

An Application bearing IA No. 3610/2025 was filed by the Consortium of Govindrao Sable, Shobha G. Sable & Pravin G. Sable, an unsuccessful Resolution Applicant (“Unsuccessful Resolution Applicant”/“URA”/“Intervenor”) challenging the process, resulting into approval of Resolution Plan before us.

Conclusion- In K Sashidhar v. Indian Overseas Bank & Others the Hon’ble Apex Court held that if the CoC had approved the Resolution Plan by requisite percent of voting share, then as per Section 30(6) of the Code, it is imperative for the Resolution Professional to submit the same to the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT). On receipt of such a proposal, the Adjudicating Authority is required to satisfy itself that the Resolution Plan as approved by CoC meets the requirements specified in Section 30(2) of the Code. The Hon’ble Apex Court further held that the discretion of the Adjudicating Authority is circumscribed by Section 31 of the Code and is limited to scrutiny of the Resolution Plan “as approved” by the requisite percent of voting share of financial creditors. Even in that enquiry, the grounds on which the Adjudicating Authority can reject the Resolution Plan is in reference to matters specified in Section 30(2) of the Code when the Resolution Plan does not conform to the stated requirements.