Authority: National Company Law Tribunal, Jaipur Bench (Ms. Kavita Bhatnagar, Technical Member)

Order Date: 22.06.2026

Case Overview

This Interlocutory Application (IA No. 29/JPR/2026) was filed by Vaaso Infrastructure Private Limited, the Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA) of Corporate Debtor Modern Syntex (India) Ltd. The application was filed under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 read with Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules, 2016. The Applicant sought directions to the Registrar of Companies (RoC), Jaipur, for removal/satisfaction of pre-Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) charge entries reflected in the MCA-21 database pertaining to the Corporate Debtor.

The Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against Modern Syntex commenced on 28.03.2022 following admission of a petition under Section 7 of the IBC. The Resolution Plan submitted by Vaaso Infrastructure was approved by the Adjudicating Authority on 12.03.2024. The Applicant contended that Clause 29.6 of the approved Resolution Plan provided for extinguishment of all pre-approval liabilities, including guarantees, indemnities, and credit support arrangements. They further relied on Para 29.10 of the approval order, which stated that upon receipt of payment, secured financial creditors shall issue discharge certificates, release charges on securities, and release the Corporate Debtor from guarantees.

The Applicant submitted that all payments under the approved Resolution Plan, aggregating to approximately ₹1.5 Crores, had been made within the stipulated timeline, and thus the Plan stood fully implemented. Despite this, pre-CIRP charge entries in favor of ICICI Bank Limited, IFCI Limited, and Rajasthan Financial Corporation continued to be reflected in the MCA-21 records. The Applicant stated that repeated communications and multiple Change Request Forms (CRFs) filed with the RoC had been rejected. The continuance of these charges was argued to adversely affect the implementation of the Resolution Plan and the revival of the Corporate Debtor by creating an impression that its assets remained encumbered.

The Applicant relied heavily on Section 31 of the IBC and Supreme Court judgments in Ghanshyam Mishra & Sons Pvt. Ltd. vs. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. and Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Ltd. vs. Satish Kumar Gupta to contend that an approved Resolution Plan extinguishes all prior liabilities and entitles the SRA to a "clean slate."

Respondent No. 3, the Administrator of the Specified Undertaking of Unit Trust of India (SUUTI), opposed the application. They raised preliminary objections regarding its maintainability, arguing that the register of charges is a statutory register governed by Sections 77 to 87 of the Companies Act, 2013 and the Companies (Registration of Charges) Rules, 2014. They contended that satisfaction of charge under Section 82 of the Companies Act is a specific statutory process requiring filing of prescribed forms and verification by the RoC, and that the Tribunal cannot compel the RoC to alter statutory records contrary to this Act. They further argued that approval of a Resolution Plan does not automatically result in deletion of statutory charge entries and that implementation must conform to applicable statutory frameworks. Respondent No. 3 relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Embassy Property Developments Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka to contend that the NCLT's jurisdiction does not extend to directing statutory authorities to act contrary to their governing statutes. They also referred to pending proceedings before the NCLAT concerning certain land assets of the Corporate Debtor, suggesting that deleting charges at this stage might prejudice those proceedings.

Final Outcome

The Tribunal disposed of the application with specific directions. It acknowledged the principle established in Ghanshyam Mishra and Essar Steel that an SRA is entitled to a clean slate. However, it also recognized the settled law that statutory authorities continue to be governed by their independent frameworks, as clarified in Embassy Property Developments.

The Tribunal found that it could not accept the Applicant's broad proposition for judicial deletion of statutory charge entries without recourse to the prescribed procedure under the Companies Act. Conversely, it also held that secured creditors cannot indefinitely withhold cooperation required to effectuate the approved Resolution Plan once it has been implemented.

The Tribunal did not grant the specific prayer for direct deletion of charge IDs. Instead, it directed Respondent No. 3 (SUUTI) and all other concerned secured creditors to: (i) issue appropriate discharge/no dues/satisfaction documents in terms of the approved Resolution Plan and Para 29.10 of the approval order dated 12.03.2024; (ii) cooperate in filing and completing the statutory formalities required under the Companies Act, 2013 for satisfaction/modification of charges; and (iii) not create unnecessary impediments in the implementation of the approved Resolution Plan.

The Tribunal further directed the Registrar of Companies, Jaipur, to process any such filings made in accordance with law expeditiously, keeping in view the approved Resolution Plan and the NCLT's order. It explicitly clarified that this order does not direct the RoC to act contrary to the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013 or to dispense with any statutory compliances.

Topics: Insolvency Resolution, Corporate Charges, NCLT Jurisdiction