Cosmic CRF wins Supreme Court 2026 Section 29A eligibility

What the Supreme Court decided

The Supreme Court of India, in its Civil Appellate Jurisdiction, allowed appeals filed by Cosmic CRF Limited and set aside earlier judgments of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT). The order is dated 14 May 2026 and covers Civil Appeal Nos. 4266-4267 of 2026 and 6684 of 2026. The dispute arose from the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) of Amzen Transportation Industries Pvt Ltd, where Cosmic CRF had participated as a prospective resolution applicant. NCLAT had previously declared Cosmic CRF ineligible under Section 29A(c) and Section 29A(j) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Supreme Court’s order reverses that position and affirms that Cosmic CRF and its connected persons are eligible under Section 29A.

The order also directs that the fresh Form-G and all subsequent actions taken pursuant to the impugned NCLAT orders be cancelled. In addition, all pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. With this, Cosmic CRF’s resolution-plan process is to be taken up by the Committee of Creditors (CoC) in accordance with law.

Case details and parties

The case is titled Cosmic CRF Limited vs Myotic Trading Private Limited & Ors. Cosmic CRF Limited is the appellant and a prospective resolution applicant in the CIRP of Amzen Transportation Industries Pvt Ltd. The appeals challenged NCLAT judgments that had held the appellant ineligible to submit or proceed with a resolution plan due to alleged disqualifications under Section 29A.

The Supreme Court’s ruling is a direct legal clearance for Cosmic CRF to remain in the bidding process for Amzen Transportation Industries Pvt Ltd. The decision matters because Section 29A eligibility is a threshold issue. If a bidder is held ineligible, its plan cannot be considered even if the CoC is otherwise willing to evaluate it.

What Section 29A issues were in dispute

The NCLAT had concluded that Cosmic CRF Limited was ineligible under Section 29A(c) and Section 29A(j) of the IBC. The Supreme Court has now held that Cosmic CRF and its associates are not disqualified under these clauses, restoring eligibility.

This outcome has practical implications for the CIRP timeline and process steps. Since the Supreme Court has cancelled the fresh Form-G and subsequent actions taken pursuant to the NCLAT orders, the process is intended to move forward with the resolution plan proceedings involving Cosmic CRF, rather than restarting the invitation stage.

How the Amzen CIRP and bidding process reached the courts

The CIRP of Amzen Transportation Industries Limited commenced on 04 May 2022. A Form G was published on 20 April 2024 and required a minimum tangible net worth of Rs. 100 crore for eligibility as a prospective resolution applicant. A consortium submitted a resolution plan on 02 July 2024. A challenge mechanism process was initiated, and the final round reportedly involved the Myotic-Fortune consortium and Cosmic CRF Limited.

The CoC considered legal reports from AHSK & Co. and Priyanka Sharma & Associates (PSA) and initially found Cosmic CRF ineligible under Section 29A on 19 October 2024. It also declared the Myotic-Fortune consortium as the winner and asked for a final plan. Cosmic CRF challenged its ineligibility before the NCLT, which on 09 January 2025 remanded the issue to the CoC for reconsideration after giving Cosmic CRF a fair hearing.

Subsequently, on 06 March 2025, after obtaining a legal opinion from a Senior Advocate that was contrary to earlier expert reports, the CoC unanimously declared Cosmic CRF eligible under Section 29A and resumed the challenge process.

What the NCLAT had held earlier

NCLAT later held that Cosmic CRF Limited is ineligible under Section 29A and should not be considered a prospective resolution applicant. The NCLAT also concluded that the CIRP process had procedural irregularities and non-compliance and must recommence from the stage of issuance of a fresh Form G. In the same set of findings, NCLAT also held that Myotic Trading Pvt Ltd was correctly found ineligible to be considered a prospective resolution applicant after Fortune’s withdrawal, because Myotic’s net worth fell below the required threshold and the consortium ceased to exist.

In a related development reported separately, the NCLAT, New Delhi declined to recall its earlier judgment declaring Cosmic CRF ineligible as a resolution applicant. The tribunal reiterated that recall jurisdiction is limited and cannot be used to reargue the case on merits. The recall application was dismissed, and the earlier ineligibility finding was left undisturbed at that stage.

The Supreme Court’s directions on process steps

The Supreme Court allowed both appeals and set aside the NCLAT judgments that had declared Cosmic CRF ineligible. The Court affirmed Cosmic CRF’s eligibility under Section 29A and directed that the fresh Form-G and all subsequent actions taken pursuant to the impugned orders be cancelled. This is significant because Form-G issuance is a key step that determines who can submit expressions of interest and submit plans.

The Supreme Court also stated that the appellant’s resolution-plan proceedings shall be processed by the CoC in accordance with law. Separately, all pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. Together, these directions point to the CIRP moving forward from the stage where Cosmic CRF’s plan can be considered, instead of re-running the process from the invitation stage.

Committee of Creditors composition and voting rights

The ruling returns the decision-making back to the CoC, which will consider Cosmic CRF’s resolution plan. The CoC voting rights mentioned in the case context are as follows.

The Supreme Court’s order does not approve or reject any resolution plan on merits. It addresses eligibility, which is a prerequisite for the CoC to evaluate the plan and proceed under the IBC framework.

Market and investor relevance

For investors tracking litigation and insolvency-linked outcomes, the eligibility determination is a material procedural event because it can change the pool of bidders, the continuity of negotiations, and the time taken to complete the process. In earlier reporting around the NCLAT decision that held Cosmic CRF “ineligible” to propose a resolution plan, Cosmic CRF shares ended 2.2% lower at INR 880.90 on the BSE on that day.

The Supreme Court’s May 2026 order removes the specific eligibility hurdle under Section 29A(c) and (j) for Cosmic CRF in the Amzen CIRP and cancels the restart actions linked to the NCLAT directions. The immediate operational implication is that the CoC can proceed to process Cosmic CRF’s plan in accordance with law, rather than running a fresh invitation process pursuant to the NCLAT order.

Key dates and procedural milestones

The sequence of dates and actions cited in the case context is summarised below.

Why the ruling matters for IBC practice

Section 29A disputes often determine whether a bidder can even be evaluated, regardless of price or feasibility. In this case, the Supreme Court’s outcome also affects process continuity because it cancels the re-invitation steps that followed the NCLAT orders. For the CIRP, that can mean the process proceeds with the existing resolution-plan proceedings instead of resetting to a fresh Form-G stage.

The case also illustrates how eligibility assessments can shift across forums and stages, from CoC-level decisions informed by multiple legal opinions, to NCLT directions on process fairness, to NCLAT appellate findings, and finally to Supreme Court appellate scrutiny. With the appeals allowed, the legal position for this CIRP is now aligned to the Supreme Court’s finding of eligibility under Section 29A.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s 14 May 2026 order in Cosmic CRF Limited vs Myotic Trading Private Limited & Ors. clears Cosmic CRF to participate in the CIRP of Amzen Transportation Industries Pvt Ltd by affirming eligibility under Section 29A. It also cancels the fresh Form-G and actions that followed the NCLAT orders, and directs the CoC to process Cosmic CRF’s resolution-plan proceedings in accordance with law. The next step, as indicated in the order context, is the CoC’s evaluation and processing of the appellant’s plan under the IBC framework.