Companies that emerged from India’s insolvency process and kept their stock exchange listings have delivered sharply divergent returns over the past year, with three of the four most-traded names losing between a third and three-fifths of their value.

Orchid Pharma, acquired by Dhanuka Laboratories through the corporate insolvency resolution process, is the outlier. The stock was at ₹960.40 on September 18, up 21.44% over 12 months and 77.83% over six months, against a 52-week range of ₹471.30 to ₹1,130.

The rest have struggled.

Alok Industries, the textile maker acquired by Reliance Industries with JM Financial Asset Reconstruction Company under a plan the Ahmedabad bench of the National Company Law Tribunal approved in March 2019, traded at ₹7.38 on the BSE on September 11, down 60.76% over a year. Its market capitalisation has roughly halved since January, from about ₹7,726 crore to ₹3,654 crore.

The selling has a visible source. JM Financial ARC sold 15.25 crore Alok shares between August 27 and September 3, according to a disclosure under the SEBI takeover regulations. The exchange sought a clarification from the company on volume movement on August 28. Promoters still hold 75%, leaving a public float of about 20.6%.

Patanjali Foods, the former Ruchi Soya acquired by the Patanjali group in 2019 and by some distance the largest resolved company by value, has fallen about 43% over a year. It closed at ₹367 on September 18 against a 52-week high of ₹615.81, with market capitalisation down from roughly ₹62,143 crore in early January.

Jyoti Structures, the transmission-tower maker that emerged from CIRP in 2019, traded at ₹10.26 on September 9, down 32.64% over a year. It carries an unusual structure for a resolved company: nil promoter holding and a public float of nearly 82%.

Not every resolved company stays listed. Jaypee Infratech, resolved by Suraksha Group, has since been delisted.

The pattern points to a structural feature of post-IBC equity rather than sector weakness. Resolution plans typically hand a new promoter 60-75% of the company, leaving small floats that trade thinly and move violently. Where a resolution applicant partnered an asset reconstruction company, the ARC’s eventual exit creates a supply overhang the float cannot absorb. Alok is a live illustration.

IBBI’s own research has argued that resolved firms show significant revival in average market valuations after resolution. The past year suggests the revival is neither uniform nor durable, and that operating performance eventually reasserts itself. Alok reported a loss of ₹711 crore on revenue of ₹3,775 crore. Orchid was profitable.

For retail investors the read-across is narrow. A resolution plan cleans up a balance sheet. On this evidence, it does not confer a durable re-rating.

Also See: Mankind Pharma to absorb Bharat Serums’ business through voluntary liquidation, bypassing NCLT merger route

The post Post-IBC survivors show mixed performance on bourses, with only Orchid Pharma in green appeared first on Insolvency Tracker.

The liquidator of Hallmark Living Space Private Limited has put the company’s abandoned “Emerald” township on the GST Road at Chengalpattu back up for sale at a reserve price of ₹70.50 crore, in what public records suggest is at least the tenth attempt to find a buyer for the asset since 2022.

The sale notice, published on 18 September in English, Tamil and Hindi dailies, invites bids under Regulation 32 of the IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016, pursuant to an order of the National Company Law Tribunal’s Chennai Bench dated 13 August 2026. Liquidator S. Dhanapal (IBBI/IPA-002/IP-N00060/2017-18/10112) was appointed to the company by the same bench on 17 August 2018.

The e-auction is scheduled for 15 October 2026 between 3 p.m. and 5 p.m. on BAANKNET, the PSB Alliance platform that IBBI has designated for liquidation sales. Earnest money of ₹7 crore must be deposited by 12 October at 6 p.m., and bidding will move in increments of ₹25 lakh. Site inspection is open until 12 October, 11 a.m. to 5 p.m. GST and other levies are extra.

The asset

On offer is a proposed built-up area of 8,98,137 sq ft — described in the notice as “not fully built-up” — sitting on 7.62 acres at Chettipunniyam, opposite Mahindra World City and next to the Chengalpattu RTO office. An undivided share of 6,388 sq ft is carved out of the sale; IBBI’s earlier auction listings record that this UDS was already conveyed through registered sale deeds to home buyers by the ex-promoters of the corporate debtor.

The property is being sold on an “as is where is, as is what is, whatever there is and without any recourse” basis. The liquidator’s own process document from an earlier round notes that the site is within walking distance of Paranur railway station and that construction was executed by Larsen & Toubro.

How it got here

Hallmark Living Space was incorporated in February 2012 with an authorised capital of ₹35 crore and paid-up capital of just ₹10 lakh. Commercial operations were discontinued on 1 April 2015, and corporate insolvency resolution proceedings commenced by NCLT order with effect from 26 September 2017. The trigger was unusual for a real estate failure: L&T, the contractor on the project, filed the Section 9 application as an operational creditor.

Resolution failed, and the tribunal ordered liquidation within eleven months, via order MA/303/2018 dated 17 August 2018 in CP No. 577/IB/CB/2017. The liquidation has now run more than eight years against the one-year outer limit contemplated by Regulation 44.

The stakeholder list filed in March 2021 shows Bank of India among the secured financial creditors. On the unsecured side, three Hallmark group entities had claims admitted — Hallmark Infrastructure (₹11.73 crore), Hallmark Infocity (₹3.53 crore) and Hallmark Capital (₹11.13 lakh) — each recorded as subject to objections raised in a February 2018 legal notice issued by King and Partridge on behalf of Madison India Real Estate Fund.

Price trajectory

Reserve prices disclosed in IBBI’s liquidation auction-notice database trace a steady markdown through 2022-25, followed by a reversal this year:

(Sources: IBBI liquidation auction notices, dated 14.11.2022, 10.03.2023, 09.06.2023, 21.07.2023, 13.04.2024, 05.02.2025, 05.03.2025, 30.06.2025; current notice as published 18.09.2026. A further round was run on 29.01.2022 per the liquidator’s process document; rounds between 2018 and 2021, if any, were not retrieved.)

Derived from the above — my calculations, not the notice:

• The current reserve works out to roughly ₹9.25 crore an acre, or about ₹785 per sq ft of proposed built-up area.
• ₹70.50 crore is 21.7% below the ₹90 crore sought in December 2022.
• It is 8.5% above the ₹65 crore reserve at the last recorded round in July 2025.
• EMD at ₹7 crore is 9.93% of the reserve — marginally under the 10% convention.
• The ₹25 lakh bid increment is 0.35% of the reserve, unusually fine for an asset of this size.

The upward revision is the live question in this round. Schedule I to the Liquidation Process Regulations permits a liquidator to reduce the reserve price by up to 25% where an auction fails; it does not contemplate routine increases. An increase after a failed sale points to either a fresh valuation exercise or a specific direction in the 13 August 2026 NCLT order — which is not reproduced in the public notice.

Bidders must furnish an undertaking that they do not suffer ineligibility under Section 29A to the extent applicable, and the notice warns that EMD will be forfeited if ineligibility is established at any stage. Full terms are in the E-Auction Process Information Document on the corporate debtor’s website and on BAANKNET.

Also See: Shakti Bhog Foods factory reserve price cut 23% as Delhi property book returns to auction at ₹40 crore

The post Hallmark Emerald project heads to auction a tenth time; liquidator raises reserve price to Rs 70 cr appeared first on Insolvency Tracker.

The liquidator of Vrundavan Ceramic Private Limited has put the company’s Morbi-district manufacturing property and, separately, its entire book of financial assets up for sale in a two-block e-auction on 14 October 2026 — a parcel sale that, if it clears at reserve, would realise roughly Rs 21.85 crore against a corporate debtor that has been in the insolvency system since January 2020.

The sale notice, dated 14 September 2026 and issued from New Delhi, is made under Regulation 32(d) of the IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016, which permits the sale of a corporate debtor’s assets in parcels. Bidding will run on BAANKNET, the IBBI-designated e-auction platform operated by PSB Alliance.

What is on offer

Block 1 is freehold industrial non-agricultural land admeasuring 48,859 square metres together with the buildings on it, at Survey No. 143/2 on the 8-A National Highway, behind Gangotri Glazed Tiles, Village Dhuva, Taluka Wankaner, District Morbi — inside the Morbi–Wankaner ceramic manufacturing cluster. The reserve price is Rs 11,34,84,000, with earnest money of Rs 1,13,48,400 and bid increments of Rs 2 lakh. This block goes to auction from 12:30 pm to 1:30 pm.

Block 2 is described as securities and financial assets, comprising non-current investments, long-term loans and advances, trade receivables, short-term loans and advances, other current assets, and investments made by the corporate debtor in other companies. The reserve is Rs 10,50,00,000, earnest money Rs 1,05,00,000, increments Rs 2 lakh. It runs from 2:00 pm to 3:00 pm.

Both blocks carry unlimited five-minute auto-extensions.

The financial-assets block is the unusual feature

Auctioning a liquidation estate’s receivables, loans and advances and shareholdings in other companies as a single parcel — at a reserve almost matching the land and building — is not the standard shape of a Morbi ceramic liquidation, where realisations are typically driven by plant and land.

The structure transfers recovery risk wholesale to the bidder. Rather than the liquidator pursuing debtors and litigating recoveries over an extended period, whoever takes Block 2 acquires the claims and the task of monetising them. The notice offers no schedule, ageing profile or book value for any component of the block, and no list of the companies in which the corporate debtor holds investments. A bidder is being asked to price a portfolio it cannot see from the notice alone.

That matters because the sale is expressly on an “as is where is”, “as is what is”, “whatever there is” and “without recourse” basis — no warranties, no indemnities.

Six and a half years in the system

State Bank of India’s Section 7 application against Vrundavan Ceramic, CP(IB) 561 of 2018, was admitted by the NCLT Ahmedabad Bench on 21 January 2020, with Arvind Gaudana as resolution professional. The tribunal allowed liquidation on 27 September 2024 and appointed RRR Insolvency Service Experts LLP as liquidator.

Regulation 44 of the liquidation regulations requires a liquidator to endeavour to liquidate the assets and close the process within one year of the liquidation commencement date. This notice falls well outside that window. Whether the NCLT granted an extension, and whether earlier auction attempts failed, is not stated in the notice and could not be established from the public record at the time of filing.

The CIRP itself generated contested litigation over creditor classification. In Intec Capital Ltd v. Arvind Gaudana, the NCLT Ahmedabad Bench held that the NBFC could not be treated as a secured financial creditor in the absence of a charge registered under Section 77 of the Companies Act, 2013, notwithstanding a corporate guarantee the corporate debtor had given for facilities availed by Gokul Ceramics Private Limited and Umiya Ceramics Private Limited.

A separate application, IA/699(AHM)2023, filed by a State Tax Officer against the resolution professional under Section 60(5), appeared in NCLT Ahmedabad cause lists into 2026 with an indication of proceedings before the NCLAT. Personal guarantor proceedings against individuals connected to the corporate debtor have also featured in the bench’s lists.

Eligibility and process

Bidders must declare that they are not disqualified under Section 29A of the Code, per Clause 1(5A) of Schedule I to the liquidation regulations; the notice warns that earnest money will be forfeited if ineligibility is later established.

The last date for submitting the bid application is Saturday 10 October 2026, and for earnest money Monday 12 October 2026 by 5:00 pm. Earnest money must be deposited through the BAANKNET e-wallet.

Also Read: Shakti Bhog Foods factory reserve price cut 23% as Delhi property book returns to auction at ₹40 crore

The post Vrundavan Ceramic Morbi plant and receivables book go under the hammer in twin-parcel auction appeared first on Insolvency Tracker.

Mankind Pharma will take over the entire business of Bharat Serums and Vaccines Limited (BSVL) through a voluntary liquidation of the subsidiary rather than a court-sanctioned scheme of arrangement, disclosures reviewed by insolvencytracker.in show — an integration route that sidesteps the NCLT approval process that ordinarily governs group mergers.

BSVL, which Mankind acquired for Rs 13,768 crore in October 2024, commenced voluntary liquidation on 7 September 2026 under Section 59 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Form A public announcement, issued on 8 September under Regulation 14 of the IBBI (Voluntary Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2017, sets 7 October 2026 as the last date for stakeholders to submit proofs of claim.

The mechanism

The structure was set out in a Mankind board disclosure dated 26 August 2026. Under that plan, BSVL’s business will be distributed to Mankind on a going-concern basis, immediately upon receipt of the necessary approvals and documents — including licences, permits, authorisations, consents and no-objection certificates — in Mankind’s name. BSVL will then be dissolved, and the shares held in it cancelled.

The disclosure also clarifies a shareholding detail not visible in the Form A. Mankind holds 96 per cent of BSVL directly; the remaining 4 per cent sits with Appian Properties Private Limited, itself a wholly owned Mankind subsidiary. Appian will not receive a share of the business. It is to be paid cash equivalent to 4 per cent of BSVL’s fair value, determined by a valuation report to be obtained from an independent valuer.

Mankind describes BSVL as a material wholly owned subsidiary, which is accurate on a look-through basis even though the direct holding is 96 per cent.

Why this route matters

Using Section 59 as an integration tool, rather than Sections 230 to 232 of the Companies Act, 2013, is the notable feature here. A scheme of amalgamation would have required NCLT sanction, with the attendant notice, objection and hearing timelines. A solvent voluntary liquidation runs administratively, through a liquidator, with no tribunal involvement until the final dissolution application.

The trade-off is that a liquidation distributes assets rather than transferring an undertaking by operation of law. That places the burden on obtaining fresh licences, permits and consents in Mankind’s name — a material exercise for a business with manufacturing at Ambernath in Maharashtra and Aachen in Germany, and product registrations across more than 70 countries. Mankind’s own filing makes the distribution conditional on exactly those documents being received.

Section 59 is available only to a corporate person that has committed no default, and requires a majority of directors to declare on affidavit that the company can pay its debts in full from the proceeds of its assets. This is a solvent wind-up, not a distress proceeding.

Stated rationale

Mankind’s annexure to the 26 August filing lists the expected benefits: operational efficiency and better use of resources currently split across two legal entities; improved execution capability and therapy leadership from pooling human capital; and further gains from improved cash management, reduced compliance requirements, enhanced governance and rationalisation of expenses.

The filing states that no benefit accrues to the promoter or promoter group from the restructuring, and that there will be no change in Mankind’s own shareholding pattern.

Liquidator and claims

The liquidator is IPE – Excel Restructuring Advisory LLP (formerly DMKH Insolvency Resolution Services LLP), acting through its designated partner Dilipkumar Natvarlal Jagad.

Claims are to be routed to claims@bsvgroup.com, at the liquidator’s address at 105 and 106, Midas Tower, Sahar Plaza, Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri East, J.B. Nagar, Mumbai 400059. Financial creditors must submit proofs of claim by electronic means only; other stakeholders may file in person, by post or electronically.

BSVL’s registered office is at 3rd Floor, Liberty Tower, Plot No. K-10, Kalwa Industrial Estate, Airoli, Thane 400708. Its corporate identity number is U74110MH1993PLC075088.

Sequence of approvals

Mankind told the exchanges on 7 September that BSVL’s members, at an extraordinary general meeting held that day, had approved the voluntary liquidation — subject to the approval of BSVL’s creditors under the IBC and the 2017 regulations.

That date matches the liquidation commencement date on the Form A, consistent with Section 59(5), under which voluntary liquidation is deemed to commence from the date the special resolution is passed, subject to creditors’ approval. Where the company owes any debt, creditors representing two-thirds in value must approve within seven days of the special resolution. Neither the Form A nor the 7 September filing records whether that approval was obtained.

One structural precondition was cleared three weeks before the EGM. On 17 August 2026, Mankind released a pledge over 28,280 BSVL equity shares — 38.68 per cent of the subsidiary’s paid-up equity — held by Catalyst Trusteeship as security for two listed NCD series, replacing it with a charge over the tangible and intangible assets of Mankind and its subsidiaries at 1.26 times cover. NCD holders approved the realignment on 13 July 2026 and BSE on 21 July 2026.

Background

Mankind agreed in July 2024 to buy 100 per cent of BSV from funds managed by Advent International, which had taken a majority stake in 2019. The Competition Commission of India cleared the transaction in October 2024, and Mankind announced completion on 23 October 2024, funded through internal accruals and external debt raised via non-convertible debentures and commercial papers.

BSV traces its origins to 1971, though the present entity was incorporated on 11 November 1993. It operates an R&D centre in Mumbai and wholly owned subsidiaries in Germany, the Philippines and Malaysia.

What to watch

Under Regulation 37 of the voluntary liquidation regulations, a liquidator must endeavour to complete the process within 270 days of the commencement date where creditors’ approval was required — which, by this publication’s calculation, points to early June 2027.

Three items are likely to shape that timeline. The licence and registration transfers on which the distribution is expressly conditional; the treatment of BSVL’s three overseas subsidiaries and the Aachen plant, which the 26 August disclosure does not address and which a domestic Section 59 process does not by itself dispose of; and the GST search and inspection conducted at BSVL by Mumbai tax authorities between 3 and 8 February 2026, any residual demand from which would be a contingent liability the liquidator must provide for. Mankind said at the time that there was no material impact on the subsidiary’s financials or operations.

Also See: Seven years, five auctions, two defaulting bidders: How IBC failed IVRCL Ltd

The post Mankind Pharma to absorb Bharat Serums’ business through voluntary liquidation, bypassing NCLT merger route appeared first on Insolvency Tracker.

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) has proposed tighter safeguards in the insolvency resolution process for personal guarantors to corporate debtors, including barring related parties from voting on repayment plans, mandatory valuation of guarantors’ assets and scrutiny of transactions that could have reduced recoveries for creditors.

The proposals are aimed at bringing the insolvency framework for personal guarantors closer to the safeguards available to creditors in the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP). The IBBI said a review of the existing framework showed that several safeguards available in corporate insolvency proceedings had no equivalent in the resolution process for personal guarantors.

Under the first proposal, a creditor who is a “related party” of the personal guarantor would be assigned a nil voting share while deciding on the repayment plan. The resolution professional would also have to separately identify such creditors in the list of creditors.

The move seeks to address a gap in the existing rules, under which an associate of a personal guarantor cannot vote but the definition of “associate” is narrower than “related party”. This allows certain connected entities to potentially vote on a repayment plan that determines the extent to which the guarantor is discharged from his debts.

Scrutiny of past transactions

The IBBI has also proposed making resolution professionals examine whether the personal guarantor had entered into potentially harmful transactions before insolvency. These would include undervalued transactions, transactions intended to defraud creditors, preferential transactions and extortionate credit transactions.

The findings, along with supporting details, would have to be placed before creditors before they vote on the repayment plan. The resolution professional would also be empowered to take action against such transactions, with creditor approval, at the resolution stage rather than waiting until a bankruptcy order is passed.

The IBBI said such scrutiny was necessary because these transactions could directly affect the value available to creditors and whether the guarantor had made a full and honest disclosure of his affairs.

Independent valuation

In another significant proposal, the regulator wants registered valuers to assess the assets of personal guarantors during the resolution process.

Currently, the regulations do not provide for valuation of a guarantor’s assets at this stage. The proposed framework would require a registered valuer to determine the fair value and realisable value of the guarantor’s assets before the repayment plan is placed before creditors.

The valuation report would then be presented to creditors along with the repayment plan, giving them an independent basis to assess the adequacy of the proposed security, the viability of the plan and the recovery that could potentially be obtained through bankruptcy.

Reasons behind creditors’ decisions

The regulator has further proposed that creditors record not just how they voted on a repayment plan but also the reasons for their decision.

The minutes of the creditors’ meeting would have to capture factors such as the amount of admitted claims, proposed repayment, duration and certainty of payments, the guarantor’s assets and liabilities, income and future repayment capacity, and any conduct or transaction affecting recovery.

Where the proposed repayment is significantly lower than the admitted claims or the estimated realisable value of the guarantor’s assets, creditors would have to specifically record why they considered the repayment plan a better option than initiating bankruptcy proceedings.

The IBBI has invited public comments on the proposals till October 3, 2026, after which it proposes to frame regulations under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.

Also See: Explainer on NCLT approval to Subhash Chandra’s repayment plan of Rs 6.5 crore against Rs 22,000 crore debt

The post IBBI proposes tighter safeguards for personal guarantors in insolvency cases appeared first on Insolvency Tracker.

The liquidator of Shakti Bhog Foods Limited has issued a fresh e-auction notice for the collapsed flour major’s Delhi property book, cutting the reserve price on its GT Karnal Road factory by 23% from the level set nine months ago and splitting its Netaji Subhash Place office block into two separately biddable lots.

The notice, dated September 7, 2026 and signed by liquidator Purusottam Behera, sets the auction for Wednesday, September 30, 2026 between 2 pm and 4 pm, with unlimited five-minute extensions triggered by any bid in the closing five minutes. Documents and earnest money must be in by 5 pm on Monday, September 28. The sale runs on the E-BKray portal at ibbi.baanknet.com, on an “as is where is, whatever there is and without recourse” basis.

The four lots carry a combined reserve of ₹40,13,60,000. Set against admitted financial creditor claims of roughly ₹9,865.66 crore recorded in the liquidator’s stakeholder list, a clean sweep at reserve would return about 0.41% — a little over 40 paise per ₹100 owed.

The lots

Lot C is the company’s own registered office. MCA records list Shakti Bhog Foods’ registered address as 1201-1202, Pearls Business Park, Netaji Subhash Place — the two units now on the block as Lot C.

Site inspection runs from September 7 to September 28, 10 am to 5 pm, on 48 hours’ notice, on contact number 8929290003. EMD is deposited through bidders’ own e-wallets on the portal; only the successful bidder’s EMD moves to the liquidation account, held with State Bank of India, Madame Cama Road branch, Mumbai (A/c 44553018513, IFSC SBIN0008586). Bidders must file a Section 29A undertaking, with forfeiture of EMD if ineligibility surfaces later. Balance consideration is due within 30 days of the Letter of Intent.

Markdowns round on round

The same assets went to auction on January 9, 2026 under a notice dated December 13, 2025, also signed by Behera. Comparing the two notices directly:

Derived, this correspondent’s tabulation. Percentages calculated from the reserve figures printed in the two notices; the liquidator has not published a reconciliation.

The cuts on the two land-and-building lots are identical to the second decimal place — 23.005% on GT Karnal Road and 23.006% on Samaypur Badli — indicating a uniform markdown applied across the immovable property, rather than lot-specific revaluation.

At least one further round ran in between. The IBBI liquidation auction notice listing records a notice issued by Behera on February 3, 2026 for an auction on March 2, 2026, carrying reserve figures including ₹15,91,00,000 and ₹15,25,17,000. The full text of that notice has not been retrieved for this report, and the complete count of rounds since liquidation commenced should be confirmed against the IBBI listing before publication.

On a per-unit basis the factory land has come off from ₹1,31,488 per square yard in January to ₹1,01,240 now. Samaypur Badli has moved from ₹1,29,750 to ₹99,900 per square yard.

The office block has been re-measured, not just re-priced

The Pearl Business Park change is more than a split. The December notice described the block by built-up area — 5,538.88 sq ft on the 11th floor and 3,848.48 sq ft on the 12th, totalling 9,387.36 sq ft. The September notice describes the same units by super area — 8,267 sq ft and 6,664 sq ft, totalling 14,931 sq ft.

Derived: that implies a loading factor of 49.3% on the 11th floor and 73.2% on the 12th. Two floors of the same building carrying loading factors 24 percentage points apart is not a normal outcome, and it distorts any headline per-square-foot read. On the super-area figures now printed, Lot B works out to about ₹17,527 per sq ft and Lot C to about ₹14,106 — a 24% gap. Applying the same September reserve prices to the December built-up areas closes that gap to about 7% (₹26,160 versus ₹24,425). The apparent floor-to-floor price difference is largely an artefact of the measurement basis, not the pricing.

Bidders working off the super-area figures should establish which basis the underlying valuation used before bidding.

What the creditors are owed

The liquidator’s list of stakeholders filed with IBBI under Regulation 31(5)(d) of the Liquidation Process Regulations, as on March 20, 2025, records:

• Secured financial creditors: 12 claims, ₹9,646.28 crore received, ₹9,642.50 crore admitted, with ₹3.78 crore treated as contingent
• Unsecured financial creditors: one claim, ₹223.16 crore, admitted in full
• Unpaid insolvency resolution process costs: ₹30,79,622
• Liquidation costs incurred to that date: ₹1,67,503
• Workmen and employee claims: nil

That list names Keshri Kumar as the insolvency professional. The current notice is signed by Behera. NCLT New Delhi records show an interlocutory application in 2025 by the Stakeholders Consultation Committee of Shakti Bhog Foods, acting through State Bank of India, against Keshri Kumar as liquidator, and a Delhi High Court order as late as November 2025 still describes Keshri Kumar as the liquidator in separate commercial litigation. Behera’s first auction notice on the IBBI portal is dated December 13, 2025. The circumstances and date of the handover are not established by any document reviewed here and need to be pinned down.

Background

Shakti Bhog Foods was incorporated in 1992 and built one of north India’s best-known atta and packaged staples brands. Its last annual general meeting on MCA records was held in 2015 and its last filed balance sheet is for the year ended March 31, 2015, when it reported revenue in excess of ₹500 crore. Headcount was down to six by October 2017. Authorised capital is ₹30 crore against paid-up capital of ₹26.24 crore. Kewal Krishan Kumar and Siddharth Kumar remain on the board of record.

The company’s troubles surfaced publicly in 2020, when a consortium of banks led by State Bank of India approached the CBI alleging criminal conspiracy and cheating by the firm and its directors to the tune of ₹3,269.42 crore. The Enforcement Directorate has separately been investigating the alleged siphoning of loan funds amounting to over ₹3,200 crore. (Both figures are from published reporting, not from a primary document reviewed here — confirm against the FIR and the ED’s filings before publication.)

The insolvency petition, CP (IB)-24(PB)/2018, was filed in 2018. IBBI records the insolvency commencement date as September 22, 2022 — a gap of more than four years between filing and admission. The CIRP ran 851 days before the NCLT Principal Bench ordered liquidation on January 20, 2025. The September 30 auction falls 618 days into the liquidation.

The group’s exposure to the ED case has already shaped IBC outcomes. In June 2025 the NCLT refused to dissolve subsidiary Shakti Bhog Snacks Limited, holding that allowing dissolution despite the pendency of the PMLA proceeding would amount to judicial overreach and would impair the ED’s ability to complete the trial and recover proceeds of crime. In that matter the ED alleged that the subsidiary’s name had been used to rotate loan funds against fake invoices, with proceeds layered and diverted to directors, promoters and their relatives to inflate the parent’s financials and secure further bank credit. Whether any of the four Delhi properties now on offer is subject to PMLA attachment is the single most important unanswered question for a prospective bidder, and the auction notice is silent on it.

Also See: OSIL Exports assets, guarantor’s Panipat land put up for Rs 117.64-crore e-auction

The post Shakti Bhog Foods factory reserve price cut 23% as Delhi property book returns to auction at ₹40 crore appeared first on Insolvency Tracker.

The Mumbai bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) has approved a Rs 7.43 crore resolution plan submitted by Fincare Enterprises for Central Departmental Stores Pvt Ltd, offering a sharply lower recovery to creditors against admitted claims of Rs 560.74 crore.

The resolution plan, approved on July 2, 2026, was approved by the Committee of Creditors (CoC) with 100% voting. Central Bank of India, the sole member of the CoC and an unsecured financial creditor, had admitted claims of Rs 560.58 crore.

Under the plan, Central Bank will receive an upfront payment of Rs 1.24 crore, after adjustment of the insolvency resolution process (CIRP) costs, along with recoveries from the sale of shares held by the corporate debtor in Niyman Mall Management Pvt Ltd. The plan provides for distribution of recoveries received within 30 months of the NCLT’s approval among unsecured financial creditors. It also provides for full recovery from any avoidance transactions under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC).

The total resolution plan value is Rs 7.43 crore, comprising upfront cash consideration and deferred consideration linked to recoveries. However, the tribunal noted that the immediately realisable amount, based only on the visible cash component, was Rs 1.24 crore, equivalent to just 5.95% of the company’s average fair value of Rs 20.80 crore and 7.56% of its average liquidation value of Rs 16.37 crore.

The corporate debtor’s total admitted claims stood at Rs 560.74 crore, including Rs 560.58 crore of corporate guarantee claims and Rs 16.67 lakh of other operational creditor claims. The resolution plan provides for total payments of about Rs 1.24 crore to creditors, apart from contingent recoveries.

The insolvency process began in September 2024 after the NCLT admitted a petition filed by Central Bank of India under Section 7 of the IBC. The CoC comprised only the bank. Two prospective resolution applicants eventually submitted plans — a consortium of Resurgent India Ltd and Sanjay Lodha, and a consortium involving Fincare Enterprise and Sonal Sumit Mehta. The former did not revise its offer, leaving Fincare as the successful applicant.

Fincare Enterprises is a partnership firm of Sonal Sumit Mehta and Sumit Mehta. The tribunal recorded that it had no relationship with the corporate debtor and was eligible to submit the resolution plan. Its net worth was Rs 15.96 crore as of March 31, 2024.

As part of the restructuring, the existing equity share capital of Central Departmental Stores will be extinguished. Fincare and its associates, nominees or affiliates will subscribe to 10 lakh new equity shares of Rs 10 each, aggregating Rs 1 crore. The company’s management will initially be overseen by a monitoring committee comprising the resolution professional, a representative of Fincare and Central Bank of India.

The NCLT directed Fincare to pay the balance upfront amount within seven days of communication of its order. It also directed the resolution professional to supervise implementation and submit periodic status reports to the tribunal. With the approval of the plan, the moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC ceased to operate. The tribunal said the plan met the requirements of Section 30(2) of the IBC and the relevant CIRP regulations and approved it under Section 31 of the Code.

Also See: NCLT clears Rs 1,611-crore Shree Naman plan for Gstaad Hotels; secured lenders to recover 138.7% of claims

The post NCLT approves Fincare Enterprises Rs 7.43-cr plan for Central Departmental Stores appeared first on Insolvency Tracker.

Expressions of interest have been invited for Girivar Hotel and Resort Private Limited, which owns and operates the 50-room luxury property Hotel Jaisalkot in Jaisalmer, with prospective resolution applicants having until September 21, 2026 to respond.

Interim resolution professional Gunjan Jain issued Form G on August 24, 2026 under Regulation 36A. The provisional list of prospective resolution applicants is due October 1, objections to it October 6, and the final list October 16. The information memorandum, evaluation matrix and request for resolution plans go out on October 21, with resolution plans to be submitted by November 20, 2026. EOIs are to be sent to cirpgirivarhotel@gmail.com.

MSME tag keeps promoters in the frame

Form G records the corporate debtor as a registered MSME (UDYAM-RJ-17-0645656). That is material to who can bid: under Section 240A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, the disqualifications in Section 29A(c) and 29A(h) do not apply to MSME corporate debtors, leaving the promoter group free to submit a resolution plan for the asset unless caught by another limb of Section 29A.

The asset on offer is a single operating hotel. Form G reports revenue from operations of Rs 2,88,75,409 for the year ended March 31, 2025, installed capacity of 50 rooms, and 34 employees “as claimed by the erstwhile management”. The property sits on land at Khasra No. 26, Village Manpia, Gram Panchayat Amarsagar, Jaisalmer, which is also the primary security held by the financial creditor. Collateral in the same lending pool includes plots at Bajrang Nagar, Kishangarh Renwal, in Jaipur district, and a commercial plot at Vinayak Nagar, Kismidesar, Bikaner — held against the personal guarantors rather than the corporate debtor.

The admission behind the process

The company was admitted into the corporate insolvency resolution process by the Jaipur bench of the National Company Law Tribunal on July 29, 2026. The bench of Judicial Member Reeta Kohli and Technical Member Kavita Bhatnagar allowed a Section 7 petition, CP No. (IB)-06/07/JPR/2026, filed by India SME Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd (ISARC), the assignee of Small Industries Development Bank of India (SIDBI), claiming a default of Rs 40,67,79,067.82 as on October 31, 2025.

The tribunal appointed Gunjan Jain (IBBI/IPA-001/IP-P02876/2024-25/14409) as IRP, imposed the Section 14 moratorium, suspended the board and directed ISARC to deposit Rs 1 lakh towards initial CIRP costs. Form G followed 26 days later.

SIDBI had sanctioned three term loans for the Jaisalmer project — Rs 5.50 crore (letter of intent March 22, 2010), Rs 3.50 crore (August 1, 2011) and Rs 2.50 crore (November 6, 2013) — aggregating Rs 11.50 crore. The first two facilities were restructured twice, in August 2011 and July 2013, on account of time and cost overruns, with terminal dates pushed to March 2019 and February 2020.

Personal guarantees were taken from Arvind Singh Chauhan, Nanda Singh Chauhan, Natasha Singh Chauhan, Manvendra Singh Chauhan, Gajendra Singh Panwar and Ranveer Singh. The account was classified NPA on June 10, 2014. SIDBI issued a recall notice on October 13, 2016 for Rs 12,07,28,918, invoked the guarantees on December 5, 2016, served a Section 13(2) SARFAESI demand on December 12, 2016, and moved DRT Jaipur in OA No. 177 of 2017 for Rs 12,82,84,533. The loan accounts and securities were assigned to ISARC on January 18, 2018.

Eight one-time settlement offers followed, escalating from Rs 8 crore in October 2018 to Rs 18.50 crore in April 2025. ISARC declined the last of them on May 7, 2025, asking the borrower to “substantially increase” the offer, and filed the Section 7 petition later that year.

The DRT decree defence

Girivar’s central objection was that the debt had already been adjudicated. It told the tribunal that DRT Jaipur, by a final order dated January 23, 2026, crystallised its liability at Rs 12.82 crore with 8 per cent simple interest and gave it six months to liquidate the amount through sale of mortgaged properties. Until that window expired, the company argued, the debt might be “due” but was not “payable” within Section 3(12), making the petition premature.

It further alleged that ISARC had suppressed a subsisting status quo direction passed by DRT Jaipur on January 9, 2026 in MA No. 177 of 2019 — an order ISARC has itself challenged before DRAT Delhi — and that the Rs 40.67 crore claim was inflated against the judicially crystallised figure. It also pleaded limitation, pointing to inconsistent NPA dates across ISARC’s own documents, and argued that the petition was unsupported by loan account statements and rested on a NeSL record the corporate debtor had marked “disputed”.

The bench rejected the maintainability and limitation objections. Citing Tejas Khandhar v. Bank of Baroda, it held the repeated OTS proposals — including those of December 2024, January 2025 and April 2025 — were acknowledgements of debt under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, extending limitation from the stated default date of October 13, 2016. On the parallel-proceedings point it relied on G. Sundaravadivelu v. Indian Overseas Bank and Pawan Kumar v. Central Bank of India to hold that DRT pendency is no bar to a Section 7 action, the two statutes serving different objects — recovery under the RDB Act, resolution under the Code. On the conflicting NPA dates it applied Rahul Kumawat v. Bank of India, holding that NPA classification cannot found a challenge to admission where debt and default are established.

The order records no separate finding on three of the corporate debtor’s pleas: the alleged suppression of the January 9, 2026 status quo direction, the absence of loan account statements, and the “disputed” NeSL entry. Those omissions are the most likely grounds for any appeal to the NCLAT under Section 61, for which the 30-day window from July 29 has lapsed, subject to the 15-day condonable period.

Numbers at a glance

Derived from the above (calculations, not sourced figures): the Section 7 claim is roughly 3.5 times the original sanction and about 14 times FY25 revenue; the gap between the claim and the DRT-crystallised principal is about Rs 27.9 crore; the NPA date of June 10, 2014 precedes admission by just over 12 years; the 180-day CIRP deadline falls around January 25, 2027, with the 330-day outer limit around June 24, 2027 — meaning the plan submission date of November 20 leaves roughly two months for CoC evaluation and approval within the base timeline.

Also See: OSIL Exports assets, guarantor’s Panipat land put up for Rs 117.64-crore e-auction

The post Resolution applicants invited for Jaisalmer’s Hotel Jaisalkot; EOIs close September 21 appeared first on Insolvency Tracker.

Assets of debt-laden OSIL Exports Ltd, along with land belonging to the late company promoter and personal guarantor Krishan Kumar Gupta, have been put up for a composite e-auction with a total reserve price of Rs 117.64 crore.

The auction, jointly issued by the company’s liquidator and a consortium led by Bank of India along with Punjab National Bank and RARE Asset Reconstruction Ltd, is scheduled for September 24 from noon to 4 pm. The sale notice was published on August 21.

The property comprises 114 kanal and 13 marla of land at the 80th Mile Stone on the GT Road in Jattipur village, Samalkha tehsil of Panipat district, Haryana. The land is in the name of late Krishan Kumar Gupta.

The freehold reversionary rights in the land have been assigned a reserve price of Rs 73.09 crore under the recovery proceedings initiated under the SARFAESI Act. These rights represent the ability to resume full possession of the land upon expiry or determination of the existing lease and are therefore not equivalent to vacant, immediately possessable freehold land.

Separately, the unexpired leasehold rights of OSIL Exports over the same parcel, along with the factory building constructed in 2010, have been valued at a reserve price of Rs 44.55 crore under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.

The lease, executed in 2010 and 2011, has around 83 years remaining out of its original 99-year term.

Loan outstanding over Rs 240 crore

The sale notice said the consortium’s secured claim relates to outstanding dues of OSIL Exports of Rs 240.18 crore, excluding interest from November 25, 2019, and other charges. The dues are against the corporate debtor as well as the personal guarantors and legal heirs of late Gupta.

The two interests have been combined into a single composite block for the auction. If the same bidder acquires both, the lease would stand extinguished through merger, resulting in unified ownership, subject to the applicable legal provisions.

The earnest money deposit for the composite block has been fixed at Rs 11.764 crore, while the incremental bid value is Rs 1 crore.

Property faces multiple litigations

The proposed sale comes amid several pending legal disputes involving the land and the personal guarantor.

The sale notice discloses an appeal pending before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, filed by Sumit Gupta, one of the legal heirs of Krishan Kumar Gupta, challenging a March 2023 order of DRT-II, Chandigarh.

Another dispute relates to a two-kanal portion of the land that is the subject of a dispute concerning an alleged gift to the gram panchayat. The NCLT Chandigarh Bench, in an October 2025 order, allowed the liquidator to proceed with liquidation subject to disclosure of this dispute.

The liquidator has also approached the NCLT seeking directions against an alleged unauthorised occupant, referred to in the notice as Mahabir Gaushala, concerning about 12,000 square yards, or roughly 2.5 acres, of open land facing the main GT Road.

In addition, Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1058 of 2026 is pending before the NCLAT, in which the personal guarantor has challenged an NCLT order dismissing a personal insolvency resolution process initiated under Section 94 of the IBC.

A separate civil case is also pending before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Samalkha, involving the legal heirs of Gupta, Mahabir Gaushala and the consortium banks.

The sale notice cautions prospective bidders to independently verify the title, claims, rights and liabilities affecting the property before submitting their bids. The assets are being sold on an “as is where is”, “as is what is” and “no recourse” basis.

The EMD has to be deposited by September 22, while interested bidders can inspect the property between August 22 and September 22. The auction will be conducted through the BaankNet e-auction portal, with automatic five-minute extensions for bids placed in the final five minutes.

Also See: Ushdev International returns to auction desk with ₹132-crore asset pool; Uttam Galva Ferrous stake is three-fourths of the block

The post OSIL Exports assets, guarantor’s Panipat land put up for Rs 117.64-crore e-auction appeared first on Insolvency Tracker.

The Mumbai bench of the National Company Law Tribunal has approved a Rs 1,611-crore resolution plan submitted by Shree Naman Developers Private Limited for Gstaad Hotels Private Limited, the owner of the JW Marriott hotel on Bengaluru’s Vittal Mallya Road, in a rare insolvency outcome where every class of creditor is paid in full and the sole secured financial creditor walks away with substantially more than its admitted claim.

The bench of Prabhat Kumar (Technical Member) and Sushil Mahadeorao Kochey (Judicial Member) approved the plan under Section 31 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, in IA (IBC) (Plan) No. 42 of 2026 in CP (IB) 291 of 2023, and simultaneously dismissed an objection application filed by the suspended directors.

The resolution amount of Rs 1,611 crore sits 56.7% above the average liquidation value of Rs 1,028.33 crore and 28.8% above the average fair value of Rs 1,250.59 crore determined by the two registered valuers — an unusual position, since resolution plans in Indian CIRPs typically clear liquidation value but fall short of fair value.

Under the approved distribution, creditors will realise Rs 1,610.83 crore against admitted claims of Rs 1,175.76 crore — an overall recovery of 137.0% of admitted debt, driven almost entirely by post-commencement interest paid to the secured lender.

The headline numbers

Class-wise treatment

The single most striking line is the secured financial creditor row. Omkara Assets Reconstruction Private Limited, which holds 95.76% of the CoC voting share, is set to receive Rs 435.07 crore over and above its admitted claim (derived figure) — the accrued interest component running from the insolvency commencement date to the payment date. The objectors put this figure at Rs 435.60 crore in their pleadings.

At the other end, unsecured financial creditors without voting rights claimed Rs 387.53 crore but had only Rs 82.48 lakh admitted — roughly 99.8% of that claim category was rejected at the verification stage, a point the order does not explain and which is worth a separate line of reporting.

Two admissions, one Supreme Court appeal, no stay

Gstaad Hotels reached plan approval only after an unusually contorted admission history.

The tribunal first admitted the company into CIRP on January 9, 2024, appointing Jayesh Sanghrajka as interim resolution professional. The suspended director appealed, and the NCLAT stayed the constitution of the CoC by an interim order dated January 24, 2024, freezing the process. On January 8, 2025, the NCLAT allowed Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 165 of 2024, set aside the admission order and remanded the matter.

The bench admitted the Section 7 petition afresh on July 8, 2025, again appointing Sanghrajka. The promoters challenged that second admission before the NCLAT in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1040 of 2025, which was dismissed on August 19, 2025. An appeal to the Supreme Court remains pending, but no stay was granted — a point the bench relied on to hold there was no bar to the CIRP running to completion.

The underlying debt originates in a December 2017 term loan from Piramal Capital & Housing Finance, assigned to Omkara ARC on December 27, 2022. Omkara’s Section 7 petition, filed in March 2023, claimed a default of about Rs 666 crore as on February 27, 2023.

Forty bidders, thirteen plans, no challenge mechanism

The RP published Form G on August 30, 2025 and received 43 expressions of interest by the extended September 25 deadline. A final list of 40 eligible prospective resolution applicants was published on October 27, 2025, and 13 resolution plans were received on November 27, 2025.

Among the disclosed contenders was Juniper Hotels Limited, whose board approved participation in the CIRP on November 26, 2025 and which told the stock exchanges it was pursuing the asset as a distressed acquisition aligned with its premium hospitality strategy.

Notably, the CoC did not run a challenge mechanism. At its ninth meeting on December 24, 2025, it recorded that the plans differed materially in structure — treatment of cash balances, continuation of the Marriott arrangement, statutory dues, reliefs sought and the implementation reference date — and opted instead for bilateral negotiations, relying on discretion vested in it by the RFRP. Revised plans were submitted on March 12, 2026.

E-voting on May 10–11, 2026 returned 98.96% in favour. Omkara ARC (95.76%) and Global Hospitality Licensing S.A.R.L. (3.20%) assented; Kanazawa Holdings (0.91%) and Ahuja Finance (0.13%) abstained.

The plan: a hotel becomes mixed-use

The plan contemplates the corporate debtor continuing as a going concern, but with redevelopment and refurbishment of the hotel premises into a high-end mixed-use property comprising luxury hospitality, residential and retail/commercial space including fine dining and premium offices. Given that the asset is a 281-key JW Marriott operating under a management arrangement in Bengaluru’s central business district, the interaction between the redevelopment proposal and the operator agreement is an obvious follow-up.

The implementing entity will infuse Rs 1 crore for 10,00,000 equity shares of Rs 10 each. All existing equity and preference share capital — other than the newly issued shares — stands extinguished without consideration. Payments to stakeholders and all implementation steps must be completed within 30 days of the approval date, i.e. by October 3, 2026.

Objections dismissed — but with two significant riders

Suspended directors Deepak B. Raheja and Anita D. Raheja filed IA (IBC)/2516/2026 raising 22 grounds, including defective CoC constitution, inflated claim admission, prohibited penal and compounded interest, personal use of the corporate debtor’s assets by the RP, and extinguishment of shareholder value despite a 138%-plus recovery to secured lenders.

The bench dismissed the application, holding that the objectors — who were also guarantors, promoters and majority shareholders — had notice of CoC meetings throughout and could have raised these issues earlier, and that no cogent material had been produced to show the CoC lacked relevant information.

On the merits it held that:

• The assignment of debt from Piramal to Omkara, including the ECLGS facility, could not be reopened, the Karnataka High Court having ruled in the financial creditor’s favour and the NCLAT having found no fault in the assignment.
• Alleged defects in the security trustee arrangement and perfection of security interest were irrelevant “as all the creditors, whether secured or unsecured, are being paid in full.”
• Kanazawa Holdings and Ahuja Finance are not related parties under Section 5(24) of the IBC. Ahuja Finance is a related party under Section 2(76)(iv) of the Companies Act because Anil Ahuja, brother of the corporate debtor’s director Sunil Ahuja, is its director — but Section 5(24)(d) requires the corporate debtor’s own director to be a director of the lender, which was not the case. Kanazawa’s link ran through Royal Investments Limited, which held under 20% of the corporate debtor. The bench relied on Phoenix ARC v. Spade Financial and EPC Constructions v. Matix Fertilisers for the proposition that accounting treatment does not determine the relationship.
• Late claims were validly admitted under Regulation 13(1B) read with 13(1C), delay having been condoned by the tribunal’s order of June 2, 2026.
• Unapproved CIRP cost falls outside the plan’s consideration and is not a material irregularity.

Reliefs granted and withheld

The bench applied Ghanshyam Mishra and Abhilash Lal, waiving additional ROC filing fees on capital reduction and fresh issue, directing the ROC to mark the company ‘Active’ and to accept physical filings if the portal blocks them, and exempting the company from using the words “and reduced.” It left the Income Tax Department at liberty to examine implications under Sections 2(24), 28, 56 and GAAR, and preserved the department’s right to examine carry-forward of losses — the company reported business loss carry-forward of Rs 69.01 crore, Section 35AD specified-business loss of Rs 625.78 crore and unabsorbed depreciation of Rs 2.25 crore for AY 2025-26.

Any relief sought but not expressly dealt with in paragraph 98(a)–(j) is deemed denied. Third-party contracts remain subject to counterparty consent. The moratorium ceased with effect from September 3, 2026.

Timeline

Also See: NCLT initiates insolvency proceedings against Gstaad Hotels over Rs 666 crore default

The post NCLT clears Rs 1,611-crore Shree Naman plan for Gstaad Hotels; secured lenders to recover 138.7% of claims appeared first on Insolvency Tracker.