" Comp App (AT) (CH) (Ins) No.449/2025 Page 1 of 8 NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 449/2025 (IA No. 1425, 1426 & 1427/2025) In the matter of: Manaksia Coated Metals and Industries Limited In Consortium with Ideal Buildcon Private Limited Ideal Motor Finance Private Limited Through its Authorised Signatory Ms Shruti Agarwal Address: 4/1, Dr Abani Dutta Road, 3rd floor, Howrah, West Bengal-711106 … Appellant V Mr Hitesh Goel Resolution Professional of Bhadreshwar Vidyuyt Private Limited New No. 16, Old No. 41, Ground Floor Thomas Nagar Little Mount, Saidapet, Chennai Tamil Nadu-600015 Also At: Alvarez & Marsal India Professional Services LLP 1st Floor B Wing Prius Platinum Tower Saket, New Delhi-110017 …Respondent No. 1 Committee of Creditors Bhadreshwar Vidyut Private Limited Through REC Limited Core-4 SCOPE Complex 7, Lodhi Road New Delhi-110003 …Respondent No. 2 Jindal Power Limited Through its Authorised Signatory Mr. B. Ramkumar Having office at: Prince Tower, stn Floor, Unit No. 25 & 26, College Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai- 600006 …Respondent No. 3 Comp App (AT) (CH) (Ins) No.449/2025 Page 2 of 8 Present : For Appellant : Ms. Aakanksha Nehra, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Krishna Srinivasan, Senior Advocate For Mr. Dwarakesh Prabhakaran, Advocate for R1 Mr. Aditya Mukerjee, Advocate for R2 Mr. Abhijeet Sinha, Senior Advocate For Ms. Shweta Dubey, Ms. Kanishka Prasad and Mr. S. Karthik, Advocate for R3 JUDGMENT (Hybrid Mode) Per: Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma, Member (Judicial): This Company Appeal is accompanied with various Interlocutory Applications, before venturing to decide the Company Appeal itself on merits, a prior disposal of the Interlocutory Applications become inevitable. a) Company Appeal is accompanied with the Condone Delay application being IA No. 1426/2025, where the appellant has sought a condonation of 13 days of delay, that has chanced in preferring the Appeal. After having heard the Learned Counsel for the Appellant, on the Condone Delay application and besides after having gone through the reasons, which has been given by the Appellant in Para 3 of the Condone Delay application that, sometime was consumed by the Appellant in seeking consultation with the Counsels and the consequential approval required to challenge the impugned order, certain delay has chanced. Apart from that, the Appellant has also submitted in Para 4 of the Condone Delay application, that since the Appellant is a Calcutta based company and Comp App (AT) (CH) (Ins) No.449/2025 Page 3 of 8 its Counsels are operating from Delhi, and since the matter pertains to be falling in the jurisdiction of Chennai, it became cumbersome for the Appellant to co-ordinate and institute the Company Appeal, because of which certain time was consumed. Having heard the Learned Counsel for the parties, and being satisfied with the reasons given therein, coupled with the facts that the number of days of delay, which has been sought to be condoned is falling well within the proviso to sub section (2) of Section 61 of I&B Code. The delay that has chanced in preferring the Company Appeal would stand condoned. b) IA No. 1425/2025, is an application that, has been preferred by the Applicant under Rule 73 of the NCLAT Rules, to be read with order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC, to bring certain additional documents on record. The documents thus sought to be brought on record being the documents related to the event which are subsequent in time, the application is allowed and the documents filed in support thereto, would be considered at the stage of hearing of the Company Appeal. 2) Brief facts are, that the Appellant, in the instant Company Appeal impugned by the order dated 11.12.2024, that was passed by the Learned NCLT, Chennai in IA No. 805/2024, has it was preferred in CP(IB)/106/CHE/2021, wherein the Learned NCLT had disposed of the application filed by the Comp App (AT) (CH) (Ins) No.449/2025 Page 4 of 8 Appellant, in terms of its directions that was passed, vide an order as rendered in IA No. 419/2024 on the same day i.e., 11.12.2024. 3) The proceedings are said to have arisen out of the corporate insolvency process of M/s. Bhadreshwar Vidyuyt Private Limited, that is a corporate debtor and the Appellant in these proceedings is the lead member of the consortium that, was listed as one of the final resolution applicant and it had filed an IA No. 105/2019, being aggrieved against the manner, in which the challenge mechanism was being conducted. In this regard, an IA No. 419/2024 was filed by M/s. Jindal Power Limited, seeking a prayer for closure of the challenge mechanism and non continuance of the bidding process to be undertaken in the third round of challenge mechanism. The order that was passed on IA No. 419/2024 was made as subject matter of challenge by the Appellant in CA (AT) (Ins) No. 448/2025. 4) By the order was passed on IA No. 419/2024, where the Respondent M/s. Jindal Power Limited, therein had sought a direction to Respondent No. 1 & 2 to conduct the voting as per the result of the second challenge process and further to restrain the Respondent No. 1 & 2 from conducting the third challenge process as it stood scheduled for 12.02.2024. The ultimate conclusion of the proceedings of IA No. 419/2024, has resulted into partial allowing of the application by the order of 11.12.2024, which was challenged by the Appellant in CA (AT) (Ins) No. 448/2025, which has now been sought to be dismissed as Comp App (AT) (CH) (Ins) No.449/2025 Page 5 of 8 withdrawn by the Appellant today, filing a memo of withdrawal in relation thereto. 5) In the instant Company Appeal, where the challenge has been given by the Appellant is to the order that was passed on IA No. 805/2024, the implications of the impugned order would be in the context of the relief, which was modulated therein the IA in the following manner: a) Allow the present Application; b) Pass appropriate order(s) / direction(s) for setting aside / invalidation of the 1st Challenge Process conducted on 07.12.2023 and 11.12.2023 and the 2nd Challenge Process conducted on 12.01.2024 by the Resolution Professional. And / or alternately, c) Pass appropriate order(s) / direction(s) that in case both Challenge Processes are deemed valid, a direction be passed by this Hon'ble Adjudicating Authority to vacate the stay on the Swiss Challenge / 3rd Challenge Process held on 12.02.2024, thereby allowing the applicant to participate without infringing upon their rights and ensuring the fulfilment of the objectives of the Code. 6) The case of the applicant / appellant in the said IA in IA No. 419/2024, was that, the applicant in the capacity of being a prospective resolution applicant, has submitted a resolution plan on 21.09.2023, with the net present value of NPV of Rs. 289.35 Crores. When the said application was put to contest, the Respondent No. 1, had alleged that the relief sought by the applicant in the capacity of being the Prospective Resolution Applicant, challenging the challenge Comp App (AT) (CH) (Ins) No.449/2025 Page 6 of 8 process, since it was intended to a value maximisation of the assets of the Corporate Debtor, in which the applicant i.e., the Appellant herein has not participated in the challenge process, because of which he will have no locus as such, to claim for the relief as it was prayed for in IA No. 805/2024, as in the objection, referred to above, which was filed by the opposite party No. 2 to the IA No. 805/2024 and opposite party No. 3 to the IA, they had contested the application on the ground that, being a prospective bidder under the RFRA, no vested right would stand created in favour of the Appellant, for insisting the Respondent to proceed with the challenge process as could be culled from relief sought in IA No. 805/2024 (extracted above). Besides that, it was also contended by the Respondent, opposite party to the application that the Appellant has failed to prove as to how the resort to the challenge process would at all prejudice the right of the Appellant, when it aim to achieve the value maximization of the assets. 7) Based on the aforesaid contentions, the Learned Tribunal tookup IA No. 805/2024 and while observing the directions that were given there in IA (IBC)/419/CHE/2024, with regards to the effect of the third challenge process and the participation of the prospective resolution applicant in the third challenge process, it was observed that the relief sought to participate in the third challenge process as prayed in IA No. 805/2024. Since the applicant had not participated in the second challenge process, would be refrained to participate since the CoC in Comp App (AT) (CH) (Ins) No.449/2025 Page 7 of 8 its commercial wisdom and based on the RFRA had sought the third challenge process and thus observed that, since the relief prayed for, in IA No. 805/2024 is similar to that of IA(IBC)/419/2024. The directions as issued in IA No. 419/2024, will bind the decision, to be taken on IA (IBC)/805/2024. 8) Since, the Appellant has withdrawn the Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 448/2025, arising out of an order passed on IA(IBC)/419/2024. The Appellant will have no right as such to agitate their cause as against the order passed on IA No. 805/2024, which is presently the subject matter of challenge in the instant Company Appeal. Apart from it, the Respondents who have put an appearance, have contended that the resolution plan has already been approved by the NCLAT, vide its order passed on 29.09.2025 and since in the final round, the Appellant had participated in the process without raising any objection, as it has been observed in Para 2.7 of the order passed by the Tribunal under Section 30(6) of I&B Code to be read with Section 60 (5) of I&B Code. 9) Owing to the fact, that the order that has been passed on IA No. 805/2024, was depended upon the order passed on IA No. 419/2024, which has been sought to be challenged by appellant by filing of a Company Appeal, which has now been dismissed as withdrawn by the Appellant. Besides that, in the light of the observation made in the order passed under Section 30(6) of I&B Code, since the plan has been already approved after the participation of the Appellant, who had participated in the final round. No cause as such survives in the instant Comp App (AT) (CH) (Ins) No.449/2025 Page 8 of 8 Company Appeal as against of the Appellant. Hence, the Company Appeal lacks merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. All pending interlocutory applications would stand closed. [Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma] Member (Judicial) [Jatindranath Swain] Member (Technical) 29/10/2025 YS/MS/AK "