01Facts
The Corporate Debtor (CD), Amzen Transportation Industries Ltd., entered CIRP on May 4, 2022.
¶ 4The Appellant, Cosmic CRF Limited, submitted a resolution plan but was initially flagged for ineligibility under Section 29A due to its Managing Director, Aditya Vikram Birla’s connection with Cosmic Ferro Alloy Ltd. (CFAL), a company that had previously undergone insolvency with substantial haircuts to creditors.
¶ 9, 17Although the Committee of Creditors (CoC) later declared Cosmic eligible based on a Senior Advocate's opinion.
¶ 29The NCLT dismissed a challenge by a lead member of a rival consortium (Myotic) for lack of locus.
¶ 33On appeal, the NCLAT on July 25, 2025, held that while Myotic lacked locus, Cosmic was indeed ineligible under Section 29A and ordered fresh 'Form-G'.
¶ 35The Supreme Court subsequently permitted the Appellant to approach the NCLAT to point out factual errors in that judgment.
¶ 37The present application seeks a recall of the ineligibility finding.
¶ 4402Issues
i.Whether the Appellant, Cosmic CRF Limited, or its connected persons (Aditya Vikram Birla and Ravi Birla) are ineligible under Section 29A(c), (h), or (j) of the IBC.
¶ 78ii.Whether the "clean slate" provided by a prior resolution plan (of CFAL) exempts the erstwhile promoters from the disqualifications under Section 29A in subsequent insolvency proceedings.
¶ 148iii.Whether the Resolution Professional and CoC fulfilled their statutory duty in conducting due diligence on the eligibility of the Resolution Applicant.
¶ 98, 19003Law Applied
The Tribunal applied Section 29A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, which bars "undesirable persons" from regaining control of corporate assets.
¶ 102It relied on the Supreme Court’s interpretation in ArcelorMittal India Pvt. Ltd. v. Satish Kumar Gupta, establishing that Section 29A is a "see-through provision" requiring a de facto (substantive) rather than a de jure (formal) test of control.
¶ 108, 172The Tribunal also applied the principle from Phoenix ARC Pvt. Ltd. v. Spade Financial Services Ltd., holding that commercial contrivances to shed "related party" labels cannot bypass statutory disqualifications.
¶ 173Furthermore, Section 5(24A) regarding "related parties" and Regulation 36A(8) of the CIRP Regulations regarding the RP’s duty of due diligence were central to the decision.
¶ 122, 19004Reasoning
The Tribunal found that Aditya Vikram Birla exercised significant control over CFAL at the time it was classified as an NPA (2016) and throughout its CIRP.
¶ 126-127Although CFAL was resolved via a resolution plan in 2018, the Tribunal noted that the "first proviso" to Section 29A(c) requires the person to pay all overdue amounts to regain eligibility; here, the debt was "extinguished" via a haircut to creditors, not paid by the promoters.
¶ 153-154Substantively, Cosmic CRF (the Appellant) was incorporated shortly after CFAL's resolution and acquired CFAL’s primary business unit via a Business Transfer Agreement, while its promoters remained in the management of the resolved CFAL as "marketing executives".
¶ 171, 130The Tribunal determined this was a "backdoor entry" attempt.
¶ 154It further criticized the CoC for blindly following a Senior Advocate’s opinion without recording its own reasoned findings on the sub-sections of 29A, despite multiple expert reports (AHSK and PSA) flagging ineligibility.
¶ 98, 11705Holding
The Tribunal dismissed the recall application, affirming that Cosmic CRF Limited is ineligible under Section 29A, specifically under clauses (c) and (j).
¶ 177, 195It held that the "clean slate" theory does not override Section 29A disqualifications if the promoter has not personally cured the NPA default.
¶ 154The Tribunal directed the RP to continue the CIRP of Amzen Transportation Industries Ltd. from the stage of the four already received EOIs.
¶ 196Additionally, the IBBI was directed to conduct an independent inquiry into the conduct of the stakeholders and the CIRP process of CFAL/Amzen.
¶ 197All related interim applications were disposed of.
¶ 198Original Court PDF
Cosmic CRF Limited v. Myotic Trading Private Limited & Ors. [IA 4810 of 2025 in CA (AT) (Ins.) No. 859 of 2025]
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
![De facto control and prior NPA association through connected persons trigger Section 29A ineligibility despite corporate restructuring.. Cosmic CRF Limited v. Myotic Trading Private Limited & Ors. [IA 4810 of 2025 in CA (AT) (Ins.) No. 859 of 2025]. NCLAT. LawLens](/stories/thumbnails/de-facto-control-and-prior-npa-association-through-connected-persons-trigger-section-29a-i-58f46bd4e15e4e33aafa09194bc78163.webp)