TV Vision creditors approve plan request for November 12

TV Vision Limited’s creditors approved the request for resolution plans, evaluation matrix and performance security with 100.0% voting support, authorising issue to applicants on the final list on November 12, 2026. The approval followed e-voting from October 22 to November 2 after the third creditors’ meeting on October 19.

What did TV Vision’s creditors approve for November 12?

TV Vision’s Committee of Creditors (CoC) approved the Request for Resolution Plans (RFRP), evaluation matrix and performance security for issue on November 12, 2026. The decision was recorded as Agenda Item 10 and was made under Section 25(2)(h) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), read with Regulation 36B of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) Regulations.

The RFRP and evaluation matrix are to be issued to resolution applicants included in the final list, rather than every party that submitted an initial Expression of Interest. The CoC also specified that any amendment to the RFRP or evaluation matrix needs its prior approval and remains subject to Regulation 36B(5) of the CIRP Regulations.

The DCirrus e-voting report records two voters and 100.0% support for the resolution, with no votes against and no abstentions. Punjab National Bank held 98.19% of voting share and Reform ARC Limited held 1.81%, and both creditors voted in favour of Agenda Item 10.

How did TV Vision reach the plan-submission stage?

TV Vision reached the RFRP issue stage after its third CoC meeting was convened on October 19, 2026, at 5:00 p.m. The electronic voting window for nine agendas opened at 10:00 a.m. on October 22 and closed at 7:00 p.m. on November 2, according to the platform report generated on November 3.

Before considering the plan-request documents, the CoC took note of the publication of Form G, the invitation for Expressions of Interest, on September 28, 2026. It also approved consideration of Expressions of Interest received after the 6:00 p.m. deadline on October 13, subject to verification of the applicants’ eligibility documents.

The four late Expressions of Interest were from Mr. Jeetendra Kanunga, Mr. Vikas Gupta, Aspect Global Ventures India Pvt. Ltd. and Advantech Technology Pvt. Ltd. Agenda Item 6 received 100.0% support, but the filing does not say which parties will qualify for the final list or submit plans after the November 12 RFRP issue.

The disclosed sequence moves from Form G publication on September 28, through consideration of late Expressions of Interest after October 13, to the planned RFRP issue on November 12. The CoC’s approval is therefore a procedural step for receiving resolution plans and does not represent approval of any bidder or resolution proposal.

What CIRP costs and fees did TV Vision’s creditors approve?

TV Vision’s creditors approved and ratified CIRP costs incurred by the resolution professional from July 30, 2026 to October 18, 2026, although the filing contains two different amounts for that period. The agenda summary reports Rs 8.6454 lakh, while the detailed voting record reports Rs 8.8464 lakh; both entries show 100.0% approval for Agenda Item 7.

The CoC also approved Resolution Professional Alok Kumar Murarka’s remuneration of Rs 2 lakh a month, plus applicable Goods and Services Tax (GST) and actual out-of-pocket expenses, until an application for approval of a resolution plan is submitted under Section 30(6) of the IBC. Thereafter, the approved monthly fee is Rs 1 lakh, plus applicable GST and actual expenses, for the remaining period in which he continues in the CIRP.

Both creditors supported the resolution professional’s fee, producing 100.0% votes in favour, the same outcome as the RFRP resolution. The resolutions also covered estimated CIRP costs and cash flow through the next CoC meeting, but the filing does not provide a separate amount for those future estimates.

Which related proposals did TV Vision’s creditors reject?

TV Vision’s creditors rejected the appointment of Adv. Agam H. Maloo of Maloo & Co. for regular and routine CIRP matters. The filing describes the proposal as based on the lowest quotation, or L-1, across substantially all items, but Punjab National Bank voted against it with 98.19% voting share while Reform ARC Limited supported it with 1.81%.

The CoC also rejected all three proposed scopes for Vijay Garg & Associates, Chartered Accountants, as forensic or transaction auditor under Sections 43, 45, 49, 50 and 66 of the IBC. Option 1 covered July 31, 2024 to July 30, 2026 at Rs 2.75 lakh, inclusive of out-of-pocket expenses and excluding applicable taxes; it received no votes in favour, 98.19% against and 1.81% abstention.

Option 2 proposed a review from July 30, 2007 to July 30, 2026 for Rs 7.50 lakh, while Option 3 covered May 4, 2016 to July 30, 2026 for Rs 4.80 lakh. Punjab National Bank voted against both options and Reform ARC Limited abstained, leaving neither proposal with votes in favour despite the different review periods and fees.

Creditors additionally rejected authorisation for future CoC meetings at shorter notice of at least 24 hours under Regulation 19(2) of the CIRP Regulations. Agenda Item 12 received 100.0% votes against, contrasting with the unanimous approval of the RFRP, and the filing does not disclose an alternative notice arrangement.

Conclusion

TV Vision has moved from the Expression of Interest phase towards receiving structured resolution proposals after the two recorded creditors gave 100.0% support to the RFRP, evaluation matrix and performance security. The process approval is accompanied by ratification of CIRP costs, although the filing reports conflicting cost figures of Rs 8.6454 lakh and Rs 8.8464 lakh for the same July 30 to October 18 period.

The next disclosed event is the planned November 12, 2026 issue of the RFRP to final-listed applicants. Matters still unresolved in the filing include which of the four late Expressions of Interest will satisfy eligibility verification, whether resolution plans will be received, and whether the CoC will return to the rejected forensic-auditor, legal-adviser or shorter-notice proposals.