# In the matter of Pankaj Dayaprasad Tiwari vs. Sunil Gajanan Nanal & Ors.

> NCLAT judgment dated 2024-03-22. Citation: TCN-2024-NCLAT-00561. This case involves an appeal against an order dated 07.08.2023 passed by the National Company…

- **Court:** NCLAT
- **Order date:** 22 Mar 2024
- **Citation:** TCN-2024-NCLAT-00561
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/pankaj-dayaprasad-tiwari-vs-sunil-gajanan-nanal-ors-54584dd2

## Summary

### Background

This case involves an appeal against an order dated 07.08.2023 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai Bench, Court-IV, which allowed IA No.64/2023, directing the liquidation of the Corporate Debtor, Supertharrm Engineers Pvt. Ltd. The Appellants, Pankaj Dayaprasad Tiwari and Madhuri Pankaj Tiwari, who are promoters/directors of the Corporate Debtor, filed the appeal. The Corporate Debtor is a registered MSME. The CIRP was initiated on 07.06.2022. The Financial Creditor, Vidya Sahakari Bank Ltd., filed its claim for Rs.4,92,81,826/- and constituted 100% of the Committee of Creditors (CoC). The Appellants submitted a Resolution Plan, which was not accepted by the CoC in its 4th meeting held on 01.12.2022, leading to the decision to liquidate the

…

## Facts

The Corporate Debtor, Supertharrm Engineers Pvt. Ltd., is a registered MSME. The Appellants, Pankaj Dayaprasad Tiwari and Madhuri Pankaj Tiwari, are the promoters/directors. CIRP was initiated on 07.06.2022. Vidya Sahakari Bank Ltd. is the sole Financial Creditor, constituting 100% of the CoC, with a claim of Rs.4,92,81,826/-. The Appellants submitted a Resolution Plan, which the CoC rejected on 01.12.2022. The CoC rejected the plan because the bank's policy was not to accept any haircut when the value of secured assets is more than twice the amount due. The Appellants filed IA No.3887 of 2022 seeking reconsideration of the Resolution Plan. The Adjudicating Authority directed the Appellant to deposit Rs.1 crore as earnest money, but the Appellant only deposited Rs.25

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the Adjudicating Authority erred in rejecting the Appellant's offer to deposit Rs.75 lakhs …

**Ratio:** The primary focus of the IBC is to ensure revival and continuation of the corporate

…

**Reasoning:** The Adjudicating Authority failed to consider the Appellant's bonafide efforts to deposit

…

**Interpretation:** The IBC emphasizes the revival of corporate debtors, particularly MSMEs, over

…

**Application:** The Appellant had shown a willingness to deposit the remaining amount and had

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** Ashok Bh…; Barun M…; +1 more
- **Appellants:** Pankaj Dayaprasad…
- **Respondents:** Supertharrm…; Sunil Gajanan…
- **Advocates:** Abhijeet…; Santosh…; +3 more

## Timeline

- **2022-06-07 — CIRP Init…**: Corporate Debtor admitted into Corporate…
- **2022-08-19 — Form G I…**: Form G was…

## Legal provisions

- [Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 61(4) — 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-new-delhi/pankaj-dayaprasad-tiwari-vs-sunil-gajanan-nanal-ors-54584dd2