Pranav B Prem

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), New Delhi Bench, has approved the ₹3,800.14-crore resolution plan jointly submitted by Maharashtra State Power Generation Company (MAHAGENCO) and National Thermal Power Corporation (NTPC) for the revival of Sinnar Thermal Power Limited in Maharashtra, holding that the proposal satisfied all statutory requirements of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). The Bench of Judicial Member Manni Sankariah Shanmuga Sundaram and Technical Member Atul Chaturvedi noted that the resolution plan was approved with 100% voting share in the 26th CoC meeting and found no contravention of the Code.

Also Read: CoC Free To Invite Fresh Bids; Regulation 36(4A) Restricts Only Modification of Existing Bids, Rules NCLT Kochi

Background

The Corporate Debtor entered insolvency on 19 September 2022 on a petition filed by Shapoorji Pallonji & Company Pvt. Ltd. under Section 9 of the IBC. Pursuant to the commencement of CIRP, public announcements were issued, claims were collated, and the Committee of Creditors (CoC) was constituted. Upon resumption of CIRP after disposal of an interim injunction by the NCLAT, the CoC appointed Rahul Jindal as Resolution Professional and proceeded with evaluation of prospective resolution applicants.  During the process, six plans were finally received from serious contenders in the power sector after a challenge mechanism, and after multiple rounds of negotiations, the plan submitted by MAHAGENCO and NTPC was approved with unanimous voting by the CoC on 13 June 2025. The successful plan included the base resolution plan dated 31 January 2025, the Addendum dated 7 March 2025, the Second Addendum dated 2 June 2025, and a clarificatory email dated 10 June 2025 stating that implementation of the plan was not contingent on DIPAM approval.

Also Read: NCLT Mumbai Rejects Indo Global Employees’ Claims Filed 18 Months Late, Says Stakeholders Must Follow IBC Timelines

Tribunal’s Observations

The Tribunal recorded the Resolution Professional’s submissions that the MAHAGENCO–NTPC plan complied with all mandatory provisions of Section 30(2) of the IBC and Regulations 38 and 39 of the CIRP Regulations, including payment of CIRP costs, treatment of operational creditors, management and control of the corporate debtor, and implementation mechanism.

The Tribunal reiterated that judicial review over resolution plans is limited to assessing compliance with statutory requirements, and that the commercial wisdom of the CoC is paramount and binding, relying on the Supreme Court decisions in K. Sashidhar v. Indian Overseas Bank, Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Ltd. v. Satish Kumar Gupta, and Jaypee Kensington Boulevard Apartments Welfare Association v. NBCC (India) Ltd. Regarding the request for multiple waivers and concessions sought by the resolution applicants, the Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court ruling in Embassy Property Developments Pvt. Ltd. (2019) and clarified that only reliefs permissible under IBC may be considered at the approval stage, while statutory and regulatory authorities remain free to act under applicable laws.

Final Order

Approving the resolution plan valued at ₹3,800.14 crore, the Tribunal held that the proposal was viable and feasible and contained adequate provisions for making the plan effective after approval. It directed that the approved plan shall be binding on all stakeholders and be implemented strictly in accordance with the schedule provided therein.

Also Read: No Wilful Disobedience: NCLT Kochi Dismisses Contempt Plea Against Former Managing Director of Bhagyodayam Company

The NCLT further:

• lifted the moratorium imposed under Section 14,

• directed constitution of a Monitoring Committee within seven days,

• allowed the successful resolution applicants to take over the management, and

• discharged the Resolution Professional from his duties, except those required for implementation, besides directing him to hand over all records and documents to the successful applicants.

Appearance

For Resolution Professional: Ahinav Vasisht, Sr.  Advocate, Bishwajit Dubey, Somesh Srivastava, Drishti Kaushik, Karan Gandhi, Ramakant Rai, Abhilasha, Akshita, Shikhar, Advocates

Cause Title: Rahul Jindal vs Committee of Creditors of Sinnar Thermal Power Limited

Case No: CP. No. IB-2561/(ND)/2019

Coram: Judicial Member Manni Sankariah Shanmuga Sundaram, Technical Member Atul Chaturvedi