(2024) ibclaw.

in 839 NCLAT

IN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

Principal Bench, New Delhi

State Tax Officer

v.
Ricoh India Ltd. and Ors.

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 248 of 2020

Decided on 18-Dec-24

Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical
Member)

Add. Info:

Impugned Order: Mr. Krishna Chamadia RP of Ricoh India Ltd (2019) ibclaw.in
253 NCLT

Corporate Debtor: Ricoh India Ltd.

For Appellant(s): Ms. Ritu Guru, Advocate

For Respondent(s): Mr. Abhinav Vasisht, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rohit Ghosh, Ms.
Akshita Sachdeva, Mr. Prateek Kumar, Ms. Raveena Rai, Advocates.

Brief about the decision:

Facts of the case

CIRP against the Corporate Debtor- Ricoh India Ltd. commenced by

order dated 14.05.2018.
In pursuance of publication issued in Form F, the Appellant has filed
its claim on 08.06.2018 for amount of Rs.510,636,046/-.
The Resolution Professional has acknowledged the claim and the claim
amount of the Appellant was reflected in the list of creditors which was
issued on 24.08.2018.
The Resolution Professional has filed updated list of creditors for
Ricoh India Limited as on 24.01.2019 which contains the list of all

Print For: Navneet & Co. Page 1 of 13 Printed: 13.09.2025

 (2024) ibclaw.in 839 NCLAT
IBC Laws® State Tax Officer v. Ricoh India Ltd. and Ors.

claims under the heading ‘claims pertaining to statutory authorities’,

the Appellant’s claim has been noticed and list further states that the
claim has not been admitted.
Claim was not admitted by the RP noticing that the claims are under
dispute which are pending before various authorities and/or under
Appeal.
The Resolution Plan was submitted by the Respondent Nos.2 and 3
dated 12.02.2019. Resolution Plan noticed that the claim of statutory
authority admitted is ‘Nil’.
By order dated 28.11.2019, the Resolution Plan was approved allowing
MA 691 of 2019.
Appellant aggrieved by the approval of the Resolution Plan has filed
this Appeal.

Decision of the Appellate Tribunal

In the list of creditors which was updated by the Resolution

Professional, the claim of the Appellant was although noticed but was
not admitted. The Resolution Plan was submitted by the SRA on
12.02.2019, the Adjudicating Authority in the impugned order dated
28.11.2019 has captured the entire resolution plan in paragraph 33 of
the order. In the Resolution Plan under paragraph 3.5 under the
heading ‘treatment of statutory authorities’ claim of the Appellant has
been noticed.(p10)
Thus, the Resolution Plan notices the claim of the Appellant and
mentioned that since statutory dues admitted are ‘nil’ no amount is
proposed against the above claim. It is to be noted that apart from
claim of the Appellant, there were two other claims of statutory
authorities- Deputy Commissioner, Sales Tax Maharashtra and
Commercial Tax Officer, Bhopal which is also stated to be nil.(p11)
From the facts brought on the record, it is not shown that the
Appellant at any point of time raised any grievance regarding non
admission of claim nor claimed to have filed any application before the
Adjudicating Authority challenging non-admission of the claim.
Resolution Professional has published four updated list of creditors, as
noted above where the claim of Appellant was reflected and in the list,
it was stated that the claim was not admitted.(p12)
Regulation 13 of the CIRP Regulations provides for verification of the

Print For: Navneet & Co. Page 2 of 13 Printed: 13.09.2025

 (2024) ibclaw.in 839 NCLAT
IBC Laws® State Tax Officer v. Ricoh India Ltd. and Ors.

claims. The above provision indicate that the list of creditors shall be
available for inspection by the person who has submitted proof of
claim and shall be displayed on the website. It is not the case of the
Appellant that the list of creditors was not available for inspection and
it was not displayed on the website. The list of creditors which has
been filed by the Respondent clearly indicate that it was placed on the
website. The Resolution Professional in its reply filed in this appeal has
pleaded that the list of creditors was displayed on the website and was
updated periodically.(p12-13)
From the facts indicated above, it is clear that the list of creditors
mentioned the claim of the Appellant as not admitted but no steps
were taken by the Appellant challenging non-admission of the claim.
As noted above, SRA has also prepared the Resolution Plan treating
the claim of statutory authorities as ‘nil’. The Hon’ble Appellate
Tribunal, thus, does not find any error in the order of the Adjudicating
Authority dated 28.11.2019 approving the Resolution Plan. Appellant
having not taken any steps for agitating its claim before the
Adjudicating Authority at the relevant time, it is not open for the
Appellant to raise any grievance for non-allocation of any
amount in the Resolution Plan.(p14)
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kalpraj Dharamshi and Anr. v. Kotak
Investment Advisors Ltd. and Anr. (2021) ibclaw.in 40 SC has also
noticed one fact that the implementation of the Resolution Plan
commenced after approval of the plan. Counsel for the Respondent
Nos.2 and 3 has submitted that the Resolution Plan approved was fully
implemented and information of the implementation of the Resolution
Plan has already been sent to all stakeholders in March, 2021.(p16)
In view of the foregoing discussions and our conclusion, no ground has
been made out to interfere with the impugned order passed by the
Adjudicating Authority approving the Resolution Plan of Respondent
Nos.2 and 3. There is no merit in the Appeal. The Appeal is
dismissed.(p17)

Judgment/Order:

JUDGMENT

Print For: Navneet & Co. Page 3 of 13 Printed: 13.09.2025

 (2024) ibclaw.in 839 NCLAT
IBC Laws® State Tax Officer v. Ricoh India Ltd. and Ors.

(18th December, 2024)

Ashok Bhushan, J.

This Appeal by State Tax Officer has been filed challenging the order dated
28.11.2019 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law
Tribunal) Mumbai Bench in MA 691 of 2019 in CP No.156/I&BC/MB/MAH/2017
by which order Resolution Plan submitted by Respondent Nos.2 and 3 has been
approved by the Adjudicating Authority. Appellant feeling aggrieved by the
order approving the Resolution Plan has come up in this Appeal.

2. Brief facts of the case necessary to be noticed for deciding the Appeal are:-

2.1. Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the Corporate

Debtor- Ricoh India Ltd. commenced by order dated 14.05.2018. Public
announcement was made by the IRP on 28.05.2018. Appellant filed a claim in
Form F for an amount of Rs.510,636,046/- as liabilities arising out of CST, VAT
and Sales Tax. The CoC confirmed the appointment of IRP as Resolution
Professional on 17.06.2018. Apart from Appellant, other stakeholders including
Financial Creditors, Operational Creditors, Workmen and employees filed their
claims. The claims filed by all stakeholders including the Appellant were taken
note of by Resolution Professional and updated list of creditors of Ricoh as on
24.08.2018 was published by Resolution Professional in which claim of
Rs.510,636,046/- was reflected of the Appellant which claim was stated to be
under verification. The RP issued three more list of creditors on 29.11.2018,
10.12.2018 and 24.01.2019. The claim of the Appellant was noticed in all the
list of creditors and claim was not admitted by the RP noticing that the claims
are under dispute which are pending before various authorities and/or under
Appeal. In the CIRP of the Corporate Debtor in pursuance of Form G issued by
the Resolution Professional, the Resolution Plan was submitted by the
Respondent Nos.2 and 3 dated 12.02.2019. Resolution Plan noticed that the
claim of statutory authority admitted is ‘Nil’. The Resolution Plan proposed
various payments to creditors. Resolution Plan came to be approved by the CoC
on 13.02.2019 in 15th CoC meeting with 84.36% vote share. The Resolution
Professional after approval of the plan by the CoC filed MA 691 of 2019 under
Section 30(6) r/w Section 31(1) before the Adjudicating Authority for approval
of the Resolution Plan. The application filed by the Resolution Professional for
approval of the Resolution Plan was considered by the Adjudicating Authority

Print For: Navneet & Co. Page 4 of 13 Printed: 13.09.2025

 (2024) ibclaw.in 839 NCLAT
IBC Laws® State Tax Officer v. Ricoh India Ltd. and Ors.

and by order dated 28.11.2019, the Resolution Plan was approved allowing MA
691 of 2019. Appellant aggrieved by the approval of the Resolution Plan has
filed this Appeal.

3. We have heard Ms. Ritu Guru, Learned Counsel for the Appellant, Shri
Abhinav Vasisht, Learned Senior Counsel for the SRA as well as Counsel for the
Resolution Professional.

4. Counsel for the Appellant challenging the order submits that the claim was
submitted by the Appellant in Form F well within time on 08.06.2018. The
Resolution Professional did not send any communication to the Appellant
regarding non-admission of the claim. Appellant was under impression that the
claim which has been submitted shall be duly dealt in the CIRP process. It is
submitted that the Appellant is a secured creditor. Adjudicating Authority
failed to consider that the claim was submitted by the Appellant within time
and Appellant was kept in dark. Appellant came to know that the claim of the
Appellant was not admitted only after passing of the order dated 28.11.2019 by
the Adjudicating Authority. The order dated 29.11.2019 notices that liability of
statutory authority is ‘nil’ as Resolution Professional has not admitted the
claims merely on the ground that the Appeals were pending. Pendency of the
appeal shall not take away right of the Appellant. The assessment orders were
passed by Competent Authority under the provisions of Gujarat Value Added
Tax, 2003 which claims were entitled to be accepted. Counsel for the Appellant
has also relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “State Tax
Officer vs. Rainbow Papers Ltd.”.

5. Counsel for the SRA submitted that the list of creditors published by the
Resolution Professional four times and the claim of the Appellant of the full
amount which was submitted i.e. Rs.510,636,046/- is reflected in the list of
creditors published. The list of creditors further mentions that the claim of the
Appellant was not admitted on account of dispute/ Appeals pending. Appellant
did not take any steps to challenge the non-admission of the claim. Resolution
Professional having not admitted the claim of Appellant and other statutory
claims, Resolution Plan was prepared by the SRA treating the statutory claims
as ‘nil’. Appellant have not taken any steps with regard to non-admission of the
claim. It is not open for the Appellant to challenge the approval of the
Resolution Plan. Resolution Plan was incompliance of provisions of Section
30(2) and has been approved. It is submitted that the Resolution Plan of

Print For: Navneet & Co. Page 5 of 13 Printed: 13.09.2025

 (2024) ibclaw.in 839 NCLAT
IBC Laws® State Tax Officer v. Ricoh India Ltd. and Ors.

Respondent Nos.2 and 3 approved by the Adjudicating Authority on 28.11.2019

was challenged upto the Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble Supreme Court
vide its judgment in “Kalpraj Dharamshi & Anr. vs. Kotak Investment
Advisors Limited- Civil Appeal No. 2943-2944 of 2020” decided on 10.03.2021
upheld the approval of the Resolution Plan. Appellant cannot be allowed to
challenge the said order. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in its judgment has
upheld the approval of the plan and held that the commercial wisdom of the
CoC in approving the plan cannot be made subject to challenge. It is submitted
that the Resolution Plan has been fully implemented and plan implementation
was completed by March 2021. The present Appeal is liable to be dismissed.

6. We have considered the submissions of the Counsel for the parties and
perused the record.

7. There is no dispute between the parties that in pursuance of publication

issued in Form F, the Appellant has filed its claim on 08.06.2018 for amount of
Rs.510,636,046/-. The Resolution Professional has acknowledged the claim and
the claim amount of the Appellant was reflected in the list of creditors which
was issued on 24.08.2018. In the reply filed by the Resolution Professional as
well as in IA No.764 of 2024 bringing on record additional documents, updated
list of creditors has been brought on the record. The Resolution Professional
has filed updated list of creditors for Ricoh India Limited as on 24.01.2019-
Annexure 4 to the reply which contains the list of all claims under the heading
‘claims pertaining to statutory authorities’, the Appellant’s claim has been
noticed and list further states that the claim has not been admitted. It is useful
to extract the list of creditors as uploaded by the Resolution Professional on
24.01.2019, relevant part of which is as follows:-

“Claims pertaining to Statutory Authorities

Ref Name of Claims Claims Claims Note

No. Creditor Submitted Admitted under
verification
SC01 Deputy Comm, 3,47,33,90,103 – – Note
Sales Tax, 4
Maharashtra
SC02 Commercial 1,22,12,857 – – Note
Tax Officer, 4
Bhopal

Print For: Navneet & Co. Page 6 of 13 Printed: 13.09.2025

 (2024) ibclaw.in 839 NCLAT
IBC Laws® State Tax Officer v. Ricoh India Ltd. and Ors.

SC03 State Tax 51,06,36,046 – – Note

Officer, 4
Gandhinagar
3,99,62,39,006

Note-

1. The amount admitted is subject to change subsequently as we receive

further claims and based on additional information made available to us in
respect of existing claims or additional information from books of accounts
maintained by the company.

2. The claims pertaining to Fourth Dimension Solutions Ltd. (FDSL), have

been disputed and are in proceeding before arbitration/appellate authorities.
The liability is subject to the outcome of these proceedings

3. The claim pertaining to Connect Residuary Pvt. Ltd., has not been admitted
due to the following reasons

a. Documentation proving the claim are inadequate and not

satisfactory

b. Corporate debtor has already paid an amount much more than the
value of the said equipment, for which claim has been filed

c. The equipment referred to in the rental agreements are physically

untraceable

4. The claims pertaining to these authorities are under disputes which are
pending before various authorities and/or under appeal. The liability is
subject to the outcome of these proceedings.”

8. The updated list of creditors dated 24.08.2018, 29.11.2018, 10.12.2018 has

also been brought on record along with the additional documents filed by
Respondent Nos.2 and 3. The updated list of creditors as on 24.08.2018 has
been filed as Annexure R3 to IA No.764 of 2021 in which in Annexure D, list of
claims of the creditors has been reflected. It is useful to extract following part
of the said list, which is as follows:-

“Annexure D- List of Claims by creditors other than financial creditors

Print For: Navneet & Co. Page 7 of 13 Printed: 13.09.2025

 (2024) ibclaw.in 839 NCLAT
IBC Laws® State Tax Officer v. Ricoh India Ltd. and Ors.

and operational creditors

Ref Name of Claims C l a i m s Claims under Claims Remarks

No. Creditor Submitted Admitted verification Rejected

C001 G l o b a l 2,13,87,00,000 – 2,13,87,00,000 Matter is

Infonet under
Distribution arbitration
Pvt. Ltd.
C002 Addon Sales 29,03,294 – – 29,03,294 E q u i t y
and Services Shareholder
Pvt. Ltd.

C003 S t a t e T a x 51,06,36,046 – 51,06,36,046 Subject to

Officer, Unit dispute
24, pending
Gandhinagar before
various
authorities#
C004 R e m o t e 75,000 – 75,000 –
Computer
Care

Total 2,65,23,14,340 – 2,64,94,11,046 29,03,294

#Claim is subject to disputes pending before various authorities and/or under

appeal, and the liability is subject to the outcome of ongoing proceedings

Note – The amount admitted is subject to change subsequently as we receive

further claims and based on additional information made available to us in
respect of existing claims or additional information from books of accounts
maintained by the company.

Key Points to Note

1. CIRP Commencement date is May 14, 2018 2. Claims received from all
parties are under further verification. The same may be updated as per
additional information received. Amounts admitted has been mentioned
above basis available Information.”

9. The above indicate that the entire claim was noted and it was mentioned
that the claim is under verification. Subsequently, on the list issued on
29.11.2018, it was mentioned that the claim has not been admitted. Following
part of the updated list of creditors as on 29.11.2018 is as follows:-

Print For: Navneet & Co. Page 8 of 13 Printed: 13.09.2025

 (2024) ibclaw.in 839 NCLAT
IBC Laws® State Tax Officer v. Ricoh India Ltd. and Ors.

“Claims pertaining to Statutory Authorities

Ref Name of Claims Submitted Claims Claims Note

No. Creditor Admitte under
d verificat
ion
SC01 Deputy 3,47,33,90,103 – – Note
Comm, Sales 3
Tax,
Maharashtra
SC02 Commercial 1,22,12,857 – – Note
Tax Officer, 3
Bhopal
SC03 State Tax 51,06,36,046 – – Note
Officer, 3
Gandhinagar
3,99,62,39,006

Note-

1. The amount admitted is subject to change subsequently as we receive

further claims and based on additional information made available to us in
respect of existing claims or additional information from books of accounts
maintained by the company.

2. The claims pertaining to Fourth Dimension Solutions Ltd. (FDSL), have

been disputed and are in proceeding before arbitrators/appellate authorities.
The ability is subject to the outcome of these proceedings.

3. The claims pertaining to these authorities are under disputes which are
pending before various authorities and/or under appeal. The liability is
subject to the outcome of these proceedings.”

10. The aforesaid indicate that in the list of creditors which was updated by the
Resolution Professional, the claim of the Appellant was although noticed but
was not admitted. The Resolution Plan was submitted by the SRA on
12.02.2019, the Adjudicating Authority in the impugned order dated 28.11.2019
has captured the entire resolution plan in paragraph 33 of the order. In the
Resolution Plan under paragraph 3.5 under the heading ‘treatment of statutory
authorities’ claim of the Appellant has been noticed. It is useful to extract
paragraph 3.5 of the plan which is as follows:-

Print For: Navneet & Co. Page 9 of 13 Printed: 13.09.2025

 (2024) ibclaw.in 839 NCLAT
IBC Laws® State Tax Officer v. Ricoh India Ltd. and Ors.

“3.5 Treatment of Statutory Authorities

Definition Name of the Creditor Submitted amount

in INR
“Unadmitted Deputy Commissioner, 3,47,33,90,103
Statutory Sales Tax Maharashtra
Creditors”
Commercial Tax Officer, 1,22,12,857
Bhopal
State Tax Officer, 51,06,36,046
Gandhinagar
Total 3,99,62,39,006

We understand that the admitted claim amount for statutory dues admitted is
NIL. The Resolution Applicant proposes to pay NIL to Statutory Authorities
including Unadmitted Statutory Creditors, as a part of the Resolution Plan.
As on NCLT Approval Date, the claim (whether crystallised on the NCLT
Approval Date or not) shall stand permanently extinguished, and the
Resolution Applicant and/or Corporate Debtor shall not be liable to make any
payments, whether admitted or not in relation to these claims.”

11. Thus, the Resolution Plan notices the claim of the Appellant and
mentioned that since statutory dues admitted are ‘nil’ no amount is proposed
against the above claim. It is to be noted that apart from claim of the
Appellant, there were two other claims of statutory authorities- Deputy
Commissioner, Sales Tax Maharashtra and Commercial Tax Officer, Bhopal
which is also stated to be nil.

12. From the facts brought on the record, it is not shown that the Appellant at
any point of time raised any grievance regarding non admission of claim nor
claimed to have filed any application before the Adjudicating Authority
challenging non-admission of the claim. Resolution Professional has published
four updated list of creditors, as noted above where the claim of Appellant was
reflected and in the list, it was stated that the claim was not admitted.
Regulation 13 of the CIRP Regulations provides for verification of the claims.
Regulation 13(2) provides as follows:-

“13. Verification of claims.

(2) The list of creditors shall be –

Print For: Navneet & Co. Page 10 of 13 Printed: 13.09.2025

 (2024) ibclaw.in 839 NCLAT
IBC Laws® State Tax Officer v. Ricoh India Ltd. and Ors.

(a) available for inspection by the persons who submitted proofs of

claim;

(b) available for inspection by members, partners, directors and

guarantors of the corporate debtor [or their authorised representatives];

(c) displayed on the website, if any, of the corporate debtor;

[(ca) filed on the electronic platform of the Board for dissemination on

its website: Provided that this clause shall apply to every corporate
insolvency resolution process ongoing and commencing on or after the
date of commencement of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India
(Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) (Fifth
Amendment) Regulations, 2020;]

(d) filed with the Adjudicating Authority; and

(e) presented at the first meeting of the committee.”

13. The above provision indicate that the list of creditors shall be available for
inspection by the person who has submitted proof of claim and shall be
displayed on the website. It is not the case of the Appellant that the list of
creditors was not available for inspection and it was not displayed on the
website. The list of creditors which has been filed by the Respondent clearly
indicate that it was placed on the website. The Resolution Professional in its
reply filed in this appeal has pleaded that the list of creditors was displayed on
the website and was updated periodically. In paragraph 5.4 of the reply,
following has been stated:-

“5.4. That pursuant to the public announcement, claims of various financial

creditors, operational creditors and other creditors of the Corporate Debtor
were received, which were collated and verified by the IRP/RP in terms of the
Code and the CIRP Regulations. Further, as per Regulation 13 of the CIRP
Regulations, a list of creditors of the Corporate Debtor was prepared and filed
with the Hon’ble Adjudicating Authority. The list of creditors of the Corporate
Debtor was also displayed on the website and was updated periodically. Copy
of list of creditors of the Corporate Debtor (as on 24 January 2019) is annexed
herewith and marked as Annexure R-4.”

Print For: Navneet & Co. Page 11 of 13 Printed: 13.09.2025

 (2024) ibclaw.in 839 NCLAT
IBC Laws® State Tax Officer v. Ricoh India Ltd. and Ors.

14. From the facts indicated above, it is clear that the list of creditors
mentioned the claim of the Appellant as not admitted but no steps were taken
by the Appellant challenging non-admission of the claim. As noted above, SRA
has also prepared the Resolution Plan treating the claim of statutory
authorities as ‘nil’. We, thus, do not find any error in the order of the
Adjudicating Authority dated 28.11.2019 approving the Resolution Plan.
Appellant having not taken any steps for agitating its claim before the
Adjudicating Authority at the relevant time, it is not open for the Appellant to
raise any grievance for non-allocation of any amount in the Resolution Plan.

15. It is further to be noticed that the same Resolution Plan of Respondent

Nos.2 and 3 approved by the Adjudicating Authority on 28.11.2019 was
subjected to challenge before this Appellate Tribunal and thereafter before the
Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Kalpraj Dharamshi &
Anr.” (supra) had upheld the order dated 28.11.2019 passed by the
Adjudicating Authority approving the Resolution Plan of Respondent Nos.2 and
3. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said judgment has upheld the order of the
Adjudicating Authority approving the Resolution Plan dated 28.11.2019. It is
useful to extract paragraph 157 and 159 of the judgment which is as follows:-

“157. It is further to be noted, that after the resolution plan of Kalpraj was
approved by NCLT on 28.11.2019, Kalpraj had begun implementing the
resolution plan. NCLAT had heard the appeals on 27.2.2020 and reserved the
same for orders. It is not in dispute, that there was no stay granted by
NCLAT, while reserving the matters for orders. After a gap of five months and
eight days, NCLAT passed the final order on 5.8.2020. It could thus be seen,
that for a long period, there was no restraint on implementation of the
resolution plan of Kalpraj, which was duly approved by NCLT. It is the case of
Kalpraj. RP, CoC and Deutsche Bank, that during the said period, various
steps have been taken by Kalpraj by spending a huge amount for
implementation of the plan. No doubt, this is sought to be disputed by KIAL.
However, we do not find it necessary to go into that aspect of the matter in
light of our conclusion, that NCLAT acted in excess of jurisdiction in
interfering with the conscious commercial decision of CoC.

159. In that view of the matter, we find, that Civil Appeal Nos. 2943-2944 of
2020 filed by Kalpraj: Civil Appeal Nos. 2949-2950 of 2020 filed by RP and
Civil Appeal Nos.3138-3139 of 2020 filed by Deutsche Bank deserve to be

Print For: Navneet & Co. Page 12 of 13 Printed: 13.09.2025

 (2024) ibclaw.in 839 NCLAT
IBC Laws® State Tax Officer v. Ricoh India Ltd. and Ors.

allowed. It is ordered accordingly. The order passed by NCLAT dated

5.8.2020 is quashed and set aside and the orders passed by NCLT dated
28.11.2019 are restored and maintained.”

16. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment has also noticed one
fact that the implementation of the Resolution Plan commenced after approval
of the plan. Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 has submitted that the
Resolution Plan approved was fully implemented and information of the
implementation of the Resolution Plan has already been sent to all
stakeholders in March, 2021.

17. In view of the foregoing discussions and our conclusion, we are of the view
that no ground has been made out to interfere with the impugned order passed
by the Adjudicating Authority approving the Resolution Plan of Respondent
Nos.2 and 3. There is no merit in the Appeal. The Appeal is dismissed.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan]

Chairperson

[Arun Baroka]
Member (Technical)

New Delhi

—-

Print For: Navneet & Co. Page 13 of 13 Printed: 13.09.2025