Case Details

Case Name: IDBI Bank Limited vs Saumaya Mining Limited

Court/Authority: National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Kolkata Bench, Court-II

Case Number: I.A. (IB)(Liq) No. 13/KB/2025 in C.P. (IB) No. 60/KB/2024

Date of Order: 22nd May 2026

Nature of Application: Application under Section 33 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 seeking commencement of liquidation of the Corporate Debtor

Parties Involved

Financial Creditor: IDBI Bank Limited

Corporate Debtor: Saumaya Mining Limited

Applicant/RP: Subodh Kumar Agarwal (Resolution Professional)

Committee of Creditors (CoC) Members:

  • IDBI Bank Ltd. (38.67% voting share)
  • State Bank of India (25.84% voting share)
  • L&T Finance Limited (35.33% voting share)
  • Tata Capital Ltd. (0.16% voting share)

Resolution Applicants:

  • M/s Maheswari Mining Limited
  • M/s Yaduka Agrotech Limited (previously Yaduka Agrotech Private Limited)

Issues / Allegations / Violations

The NCLT identified contradictory information regarding the voting process on resolution plans:

1. The application states that Yaduka Agrotech's resolution plan received 35.33% votes in favor but was rejected as it failed to meet the requisite 66% threshold

2. The E-Voting Minutes show conflicting information:

  • Page 125 indicates L&T Finance Limited (35.33% voting share) voted AGAINST Yaduka Agrotech's plan
  • Page 130 indicates IDBI Bank (38.67% voting share) voted IN FAVOR of Yaduka Agrotech's plan via email on 11th July 2025

3. State Bank of India (25.84% voting share) intimated they were unable to vote due to constraints and needed further discussions

4. Tata Capital Ltd. (0.16% voting share) abstained from voting

Findings & Observations

The Tribunal made several key observations:

1. The resolution plan of M/s Maheswari Mining Limited was rejected with 74.16% value of votes against it

2. The resolution plan of M/s Yaduka Agrotech Limited was rejected with 35.33% value of votes in favor (below the 66% threshold)

3. Regulation 39(3)(B) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 requires that when multiple resolution plans fail to secure requisite votes, the CoC must conduct fresh voting on the plan that received the highest votes, subject to timelines under the Code

4. The application contains no averment regarding any re-voting having been conducted on Yaduka Agrotech's plan, which received the higher voting share (35.33%) compared to Maheswari Mining's plan

Final Ruling & Enforcement

The Tribunal did not make a final ruling but issued a clarification order:

1. The matter was listed for clarification on 13th July 2026

2. The Bench reserved the application for orders on 18th March 2026 but identified the need for clarification regarding the voting discrepancies

3. The Tribunal seeks clarification on which CoC member actually voted in favor of Yaduka Agrotech's resolution plan and which voted against it, given the contradictory records

4. The Tribunal also seeks clarification on whether the mandatory re-voting process under Regulation 39(3)(B) was followed when no resolution plan secured the requisite majority