# In the matter of Univastu India Limited & Ors. vs. Setubandhan Infrastructure Limited & Ors.

> NCLAT judgment dated 2025-07-09. Citation: TCN-2025-NCLAT-00323. The appeals were filed under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 against…

- **Court:** NCLAT
- **Order date:** 9 Jul 2025
- **Citation:** TCN-2025-NCLAT-00323
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-mumbai-bench-i/univastu-india-limited-ors-vs-setubandhan-infrastructure-limited-ors-e3b9007a

## Summary

### Background

The appeals were filed under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 against the order dated 24.03.2025 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench-V) in I.A. No. 07 of 2024 in CP(IB) No. 106 of 2022. The Adjudicating Authority had dismissed I.A. No. 07 of 2024 filed by the Resolution Professional seeking approval of the resolution plan filed by Univastu India Limited as the Successful Resolution Applicant in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Proceedings of Setubandhan Infrastructure Ltd.

## Facts

CIRP was initiated against Setubandhan Infrastructure Ltd. on 28.11.2022.

The Resolution Professional (RP) was appointed by the Adjudicating Authority.

The Committee of Creditors (CoC) was constituted, with State Bank of India as a lead member, and other members including IL&FS Financial Services Limited, Kotak Mahindra Bank, and Union Bank of India.

The RP issued an invitation for Expression of Interest in Form-G under Regulation 36A of the CIRP Regulations.

The CoC approved the Request for Resolution Plan (RFRP) including the Evaluation Matrix (EM) by e-voting.

The RP verified and circulated the final list of four Proposed Resolution Applicants (PRAs) to the CoC.

Two extensions of 90 days each were allowed by the Adjudicating Authority for completion of the CIRP.

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the Adjudicating Authority was justified in rejecting the resolution plan approved by the …

**Ratio:** The Adjudicating Authority cannot substitute its own wisdom for the commercial wisdom of

…

**Reasoning:** The CoC has the primary responsibility for evaluating and approving resolution plans. The

…

**Interpretation:** The commercial wisdom of the CoC is paramount, and the Adjudicating Authority

…

**Application:** In this case, the Adjudicating Authority erred in rejecting the resolution plan

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** Ashok Bh…; Barun M…; +1 more
- **Appellants:** Univastu India…; Sandeep D.…
- **Respondents:** Setubandhan…; State Bank of…; +3 more
- **Other parties:** Kotak Mahindra…; Sandeep D.…
- **Advocates:** Anusha Nag…; Aakanksha…; +7 more

## Timeline

- **2022-11-28 — CIRP Init…**: CIRP was initiated against…
- **2023-01-23 — CoC Meet…**: The 2nd meeting of the CoC resolved to issue an invitation for Expression of Interest in…

## Legal provisions

- [Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 61 — Appeals and Appellate Authority](https://caseease.in/legal-provisions/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016/section-61)

---

This is a preview. The full structured summary, issues, precedents and source judgment are available on CaseEase - Legal Intelligence Simplified: https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-mumbai-bench-i/univastu-india-limited-ors-vs-setubandhan-infrastructure-limited-ors-e3b9007a