# In the matter of Panch Tatva Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Vs. GPT Steels Industries Ltd. & Ors. Company Appeal (AT) (insolvency) No. 642 of 2020

> NCLAT judgment dated 2021-08-18. Citation: TCN-2021-NCLAT-00121. The case involves an appeal against an order passed by the Adjudicating Authority/National…

- **Court:** NCLAT
- **Order date:** 18 Aug 2021
- **Citation:** TCN-2021-NCLAT-00121
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/panch-tatva-promoters-pvt-ltd-vs-gpt-steels-industries-ltd-ors-company-appeal-c27008ac

## Summary

### Background

The case involves an appeal against an order passed by the Adjudicating Authority/National Company Law Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad, which rejected an application filed under Section 60(5) and 235A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Corporate Debtor, GPT Steel Ltd, was admitted into Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) on May 2, 2019. The Appellant and Respondent No. 3 were both Resolution Applicants in the CIRP. The Appellant alleges that Respondent No. 3's Resolution Plan was approved by the Committee of Creditors (COC) without considering the final revised Resolution Plan submitted by the Appellant. The Appellant also raised concerns about Respondent No. 3's performance in other Resolution Plans and alleged suppression of material

…

## Facts

The Corporate Debtor, GPT Steel Ltd, was admitted into Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) on May 2, 2019. Panch Tatva Promoters Pvt Ltd (the Appellant) and GP Global Energy Pvt Ltd (Respondent No. 3) were both Resolution Applicants. The Appellant submitted a Resolution Plan and EMD of rupees one crore on October 1, 2019. The Appellant filed IA No. 116 of 2020 before the Adjudicating Authority on February 2, 2020, alleging disqualification and lack of credibility of Respondent No. 3, claiming that Respondent No. 3 had defaulted in implementing other Resolution Plans, specifically Allied Strips. The Appellant contended that the CIRP expired on February 18, 2020. The COC approved the Resolution Plan of Respondent No. 3 with a voting share of 82.41%. The

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the COC appropriately …

**Ratio:** The COC has the commercial wisdom to approve a resolution plan, and courts should not

…

**Reasoning:** The COC considered the Appellant's plan but found it to be conditional and submitted

…

**Interpretation:** The COC's decision-making process is protected by the 'commercial wisdom'

…

**Application:** The Appellant's plan was conditional and submitted late, justifying the COC's

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** A.I.S. C…; V. P. S…
- **Appellants:** Panch Tatva…
- **Respondents:** GPT Steel…
- **Advocates:** Krishnendu…; Prachi…; +9 more

## Timeline

- **2019-05-02 — CIRP Commen…**: GPT Steel Ltd admitted into…
- **2019-10-01 — Resolution Plan…**: Appellant submitted Resolution…

## Legal provisions

- [Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 60(5) — Adjudicating Authority for corporate persons](https://caseease.in/legal-provisions/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016/section-60)

---

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-new-delhi/panch-tatva-promoters-pvt-ltd-vs-gpt-steels-industries-ltd-ors-company-appeal-c27008ac