IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

I.A. No. 72415 OF 2025

IN
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8218-8219 OF 2023

IN THE MATTER OF: -

SITA CHAUDHARY …. PETITIONER
VERSUS

HARYANA TELECOM LIMITED & ORS. ….

RESPONDENTS

INDEX OF DOCUMENTS

S. No. Description of Spare Court

Documents Copies fees
1. Reply on behalf of 1+3
Respondent No. 3

COPIES ARE CORRECT

FILED ON: .04.2025

 IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

I.A. No. 72415 OF 2025

IN
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8218-8219 OF 2023

IN THE MATTER OF: -

SITA CHAUDHARY …. PETITIONER
VERSUS

HARYANA TELECOM LIMITED & ORS. ….

RESPONDENTS

REPLY ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT NO. 3 I.E., THE

COMMITTEE OF CREDITORS OF HARYANA TELECOM
LIMITED

PAPER BOOK
(FOR INDEX KINDLY SEE INSIDE)

ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3

CC No.:
 INDEX

SR. NO. PARTICULARS PAGE

NO.
1. REPLY ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT NO. 3
– COMMITTEE OF CREDITORS OF
HARYANA TELECOM LIMITED TO THE
INSTANT APPLICATION BEARING NO.
72415 OF 2025.

2. PROOF OF SERVICE
 IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

I.A. No. 72415 OF 2025

IN
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8218-8219 OF 2023

IN THE MATTER OF: -

SITA CHAUDHARY …. PETITIONER
VERSUS

HARYANA TELECOM LIMITED & ORS. ….

RESPONDENTS

REPLY ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT NO. 3 - COMMITTEE OF

CREDITORS OF HARYANA TELECOM LIMITED

1. It is submitted that the present reply to the captioned Application is

being filed by the abovenamed Respondent No. 3 i.e., the Committee of

Creditors of Haryana Telecom Limited (hereinafter referred to as

“Answering Respondent”).

2. At the outset, the Answering Respondent denies each and every

statement, averment, allegation, and contention raised in the Application,

except that which is a matter of record, and further states that nothing
 shall be deemed to be admitted by the Answering Respondent for

reasons of non-traverse.

3. At the further outset, it is submitted that the Applicant has not

established a valid basis for intervention at this advanced stage of the

proceedings, given the existent factual circumstances. Furthermore, a

cursory review of the contents of the Application reveals that the

Intervenor / Applicant is, in substance, seeking to unlawfully introduce a

new cause of action in the instant proceedings under the pretext of an

intervention application. With respect to the same, it is submitted that

such an approach is impermissible as it contravenes well-settled legal

principles.

APPLICANT HAS NO VALID LOCUS STANDI TO INSITUTE

THE INSTANT APPLICATION

4. The Applicant has filed the present Application seeking intervention in

the captioned Civil Appeal, which stems from the approval of the

Resolution Plan by the Hon’ble Adjudicating Authority and its

subsequent confirmation by the Hon’ble Appellate Tribunal.

5. However, the Applicant’s attempt to intervene appears to be a disguised

effort to relitigate the entire Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process

(hereinafter referred to as “CIRP”) by raising unfounded allegations.

Such a move seems designed to disrupt the finality of the insolvency

resolution process under the pretext of intervention. In light of the same,

it is submitted that the allowance of the instant Application would

effectively reopen the CIRP, thereby jeopardizing the integrity and

conclusiveness of the process as intended under the Insolvency and

Bankruptcy Code of 2016 (hereinafter referred to as “Code”).

6. Furthermore, it is submitted that granting intervention to the Applicant at

this extremely late stage i.e., after the Resolution Plan has been duly

approved by the CoC and sanctioned by the Hon’ble Adjudicating

Authority, would establish a harmful precedent, rendering the CIRP to

an endless and uncertain ordeal. Hence, it is submitted that the

Application should be dismissed outright, as it seeks to challenge aspects

of the CIRP that have already been settled and are no longer subject to

dispute.

7. It is further submitted that the Applicant has not demonstrated any direct

interest in the subject matter of the captioned Appeal or provided any

 valid justification for the proposed intervention. The Application also

contravenes established legal principles, as the Applicant is seeking new

reliefs that were not originally claimed. It is a well-settled legal principle

that a person seeking specific relief must file an independent petition and

cannot do so as an intervenor. It is further submitted that, even if the said

intervention is permitted, the intervener can only join as an additional

party to the ongoing legal proceeding and cannot assert new claims or

seek relief beyond the scope of the original petition. In this case,

however, contrary to established legal principles, the Applicant is

attempting to secure a relief greater than what the Appellant had itself

sought.

8. The Answering Respondent further submits that the Applicant has,

without any doubt, proceeded contrary to law and sought to introduce an

entirely new cause of action through the instant Application. With

regards to the same, it is submitted that this Hon’ble Court in Saraswati

Industrial Syndicate Ltd vs. C.I.T., Haryana, Himachal Pradesh

[(1999) 3 SCC 141] has held that an intervenor can only assist the

Hon’ble Court by supporting either side’s arguments and cannot use the

proceeding to advance its own claims or seek independent relief.

9. Therefore, given the Applicant’s lack of locus standi, the Application

merits outright dismissal. Furthermore, it is well-established that a party

who did not participate in the CIRP cannot later seek intervention merely

by offering a higher financial bid than the lawfully approved Successful

Resolution Applicant. It is further submitted that it is settled law that

entertaining such belated resolution proposals would greatly undermine

the prescribed statutory timelines under the Code and furthermore,

render the CIRP an indefinite process.

10.Furthermore, the Applicant, who never contested the initiation of the

CIRP in the instant proceedings at the appropriate time, now seeks to

indirectly challenge the entire process through the instant intervention,

relying on wholly baseless allegations. The Answering Respondent

reiterates that the instant Application amounts to an abuse of the legal

process and constitutes a blatant attempt to destabilize a concluded

insolvency resolution. In light of the same, permitting the instant

Application would not only erode the credibility of the resolution

mechanism but also disrupt the finality of the CIRP, which was

conducted in full compliance with the Code. It must be noted that the

Resolution Plan has already secured the CoC’s approval and the Ld.
 Adjudicating Authority’s sanction, without any prior objections from the

instant Applicant. In light of the averments raised above, entertaining

such a belated challenge would create an adverse precedent, indubitably

turning the insolvency resolution process into a perpetual cycle of

litigation. Therefore, it is respectfully prayed that the Application be

summarily dismissed, as it seeks to unsettle proceedings that have

already attained finality.

THE RESOLUTION AMOUNT IS THE PREROGATIVE OF THE

COC AND FALLS WITHIN ITS COMMERCIAL WISDOM

11.It is respectfully submitted that a careful examination of the legislative

intent behind the Code and the regulations contained therein establishes

the settled legal position that the approval of a Resolution Plan falls

exclusively within the commercial discretion of the Answering

Respondent i.e., the Committee of Creditors in the instant proceedings.

12.In light of the same, it is submitted that once the CoC grants its approval

to the Resolution Plan, the Hon’ble Adjudicating Authority cannot

substitute its own judgment for the commercial wisdom exercised by the

CoC. Consequently, the present Application, filed by a complete third

 party unconnected to the insolvency process, seeking such reliefs at this

advanced stage, deserves outright rejection as being fundamentally

misconceived.

13. It is further submitted that it is settled law that, while exercising its

jurisdiction under Section 31 of the Code to approve a Resolution Plan,

the Hon’ble Adjudicating Authority is statutorily obligated to verify

compliance with the requirements under Section 30(2) of the Code. This

judicial scrutiny is limited to ensuring that the CoC’s commercial

decision to approve the Resolution Plan conforms to the statutory

provisions of the Code, without transgressing into the realm of

commercial evaluation that remains the exclusive domain of the CoC.

Reliance for the said proposition is placed upon this Hon’ble Court’s

decision in Kalpraj Dharamshi & Anr. v. Kotak Investment Advisors

Ltd. & Anr. [Civil Appeal Nos. 2943-2944 of 2020] and Committee of

Creditors of Essar Steel India Limited Through Authorised Signatory

v. Satish Kumar Gupta and Others [2019 SCC Online SC 1478].

14. It is also relevant to note that the Resolution Professional, in the instant

proceedings, received three Resolution Plans for the insolvency

 resolution of the Corporate Debtor. Following comprehensive evaluation

based on the established assessment criteria, the plan submitted by the

Successful Resolution Applicant was ranked highest. The said

Resolution Plan underwent:

a. thorough due diligence by the RP appointed Independent

Auditor;

b. rigorous commercial evaluation by the CoC; and

c. detailed judicial scrutiny by the Hon'ble Adjudicating

Authority.

In light of the same, it is submitted that the approved Resolution Plan is

legally sound and free from defects and entertaining the present

Application would unfairly prejudice the stakeholders in the underlying

CIRP, who have acted in good faith and in strict compliance with all

legal requirements throughout the process.

15.Furthermore, the Order dated 12.04.2023 demonstrates the Applicant’s

full awareness of the financial terms of the approved Resolution Plan.

Therefore, the Applicant’s current enhanced offer, purportedly for value

maximization, is impermissible. It is trite law that once a Resolution

Plan is opened and its financial particulars disclosed to all participants

 (including the RP), the process cannot accept revised bids. It is

submitted that allowing such post-facto enhancements under the pretext

of value maximization would undermine the integrity of the resolution

process.

THE INSTANT APPLICATION IS CONTRARY TO

ESTABLISHED PROCEDURE AND SUFFERS FROM DEEP
INFIRMITIES

16. It is submitted that the Applicant’s Intervention Application represents a

fundamental disregard for the statutory framework established under the

Code. It is further submitted that the Code establishes clear procedural

requirements and mandatory timelines for the CIRP, which all

stakeholders are bound to observe.

17.Pertinently, the statutory framework prescribed under the Code

specifically outlines the proper procedure for submission of Resolution

Plans. Notably, the Applicant has approached this Hon’ble Court by way

of the instant Application seeking exemption from the Code’s prescribed

procedure despite failing to submit a valid Expression of Interest during

the CIRP period.

18.Furthermore, the Code expressly stipulates that only Prospective

Resolution Applicants (PRAs) appearing in the final list under

Regulation 36A (12) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India

(Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations,

2016 are eligible to submit resolution plans. It is an undisputed fact that

the Applicant completely abstained from participating in the CIRP

proceedings and has approached the Hon’ble Adjudicating Authority

only at the final stage, long after the Successful Resolution Applicant’s

Resolution Plan received approval from both the CoC and the Hon’ble

Adjudicating Authority on 19.09.2020 and 12.04.2023, respectively.

19.In view of the foregoing paragraphs, it is submitted that it is in the

interest of justice that the present Application be dismissed with

exemplary costs.

20. The Answering Respondent submits that all allegations contained in the

present Application have been adequately rebutted. For the sake of

brevity, a paragraph-by-paragraph reply has not been furnished at this

stage, though the Answering Respondent respectfully craves liberty to

file a detailed paragraph wise reply, if so directed by this Hon’ble Court

or if deemed necessary in subsequent proceedings.

RESPONDENT NO. 3