Roopya Tradebizz NCLAT Appeal Dismissed

Case Details

Case Name: Roopya Tradebizz Limited vs. Kailash T Shah Erstwhile RP and Chairman of Monitoring Committee of Euphoria Technologies Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

Court/Authority: National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi

Case Numbers: Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 576 of 2026 & I.A. No. 2218, 2219 of 2026; Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 577 of 2026 & I.A. No. 2220 of 2026

Date of Order: 29.05.2026

Period of Dispute: Relates to implementation of resolution plan post-approval

Parties Involved

Appellant: Roopya Tradebizz Limited

Respondents:

• Kailash T Shah (Erstwhile Resolution Professional and Chairman of Monitoring Committee of Euphoria Technologies Pvt. Ltd.)
• Other respondents represented by advocates

Corporate Debtor: Euphoria Technologies Pvt. Ltd.

Legal Representatives:

• For Appellant: Mr. Atul Sharma and Mr. Pankaj Jain, Advocates
• For Respondents: Ms. Honey Satpal with Mr. Akash Agarwalla and Mr. Aman, Advocates for R1; Mr. Sandeep Chaturvedi, Advocate for other respondents

Issues / Allegations / Violations

The appeals challenge two orders of the Adjudicating Authority:

1. Order dated 08.01.2026 concluding that the resolution plan had not been implemented by the appellant and directing the Monitoring Committee to file an application for liquidation

2. Order dated 13.01.2026 allowing the application for liquidation and appointing the liquidator

The core issue is the failed implementation of the resolution plan by the Successful Resolution Applicant (Roopya Tradebizz Limited). The appellant claimed initial payment of Rs. 72 lakhs and upfront payment of Rs. 99 lakhs, but alleged that assets were not handed over and sale was not permitted as per the resolution plan.

Findings & Observations

The Tribunal found that:

• The Adjudicating Authority did not commit any error in directing filing of liquidation application
• The Successful Resolution Applicant failed to implement the plan within the prescribed timelines
• Timelines in Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) have their own importance and proceedings must be completed within reasonable time
• After SRA fails to implement the plan, liquidation is the appropriate consequence
• The SRA who failed to implement the plan is not a necessary party in the liquidation application
• The upfront payment of Rs. 99 lakhs was paid by a third party bank draft which expired and the amount could not be realized
• The appellant did not take steps for payment of further trenches as required by the resolution plan

Penalties / Settlements / Directions

• Both appeals filed by Roopya Tradebizz Limited are dismissed
• The liquidation order for Euphoria Technologies Pvt. Ltd. stands upheld
• The liquidator is authorized to proceed with auction of assets
• It is open for any interested party to take measures against the auction as permissible in law if they believe assets are being sold at undervalued amounts

Final Ruling & Enforcement

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal dismissed both appeals (CA (AT) (Ins) No. 576 of 2026 and CA (AT) (Ins) No. 577 of 2026), upholding the orders of the Adjudicating Authority that directed liquidation of Euphoria Technologies Pvt. Ltd. due to non-implementation of the resolution plan by Roopya Tradebizz Limited.