W.P.(C) 6553/2026 $~70 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: September 30th, 2026 # CNR No. DLHC010212082026 + W.P.(C) 6553/2026 & CM APPL. 32339/2026 WAAREE TRANSPOWER PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Jeevesh Nagrath, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Dhiraj Abraham Philips, Mr. Febin Mathew Varghese, Ms. Soyarchon Khangrah & Ms. Bhavika Sharma, Advs. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Shankar Kumar Jha, SPC with Mr. Malay Dixit, Legal Officer CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN AMIT MAHAJAN, J. (Oral) 1. The present petition has been filed challenging the continued operation of Denied Entry List (“DEL”) status imposed upon the Petitioner’s Importer Exporter Code (“IEC”) No. 0296013242 vide multiple impugned orders dated 05.04.2023 and 05.09.2023. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that, the aforesaid orders were issued in relation to various Advance Authorisations and EPCG Authorisations granted to the Petitioner, on account of alleged non- fulfilment of export obligations and/or non-submission of documents evidencing discharge of such obligations. The DEL proceedings arose from the alleged defaults in respect of these authorisations, pertaining to the Petitioner's manufacturing units at Agra, Uttar Pradesh and Alwar, Rajasthan. The consequence of the DEL status is that the Signed By:SHIKHA SEHGAL Signing Date:03.10.2026 16:02:45 Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 6553/2026 Petitioner is denied the issuance or renewal of certain licences, authorisations and allied benefits under the applicable foreign trade regime, thereby paralyzing its export-import operations. 3. The Petitioner’s principal grievance is that the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP”), in respect of the Petitioner (formerly Kotsons Private Limited), had commenced vide order dated 09.06.2023. Prior to and during the process, the impugned DEL orders were issued placing the Petitioner on the DEL due to pre-CIRP defaults of the erstwhile management. 4. According to the Petitioner, Respondents had themselves submitted its claim as an Operational Creditor (Government Dues) in FORM-B dated 19.09.2023 before the Resolution Professional. This claim, quantified at approximately ₹15.66 Crores, directly pertained to the duty saved amounts, interest, and penalties arising from non- fulfilment of export obligations under the very same Advance and EPCG Authorisations that form the basis of the impugned DEL orders. 5. The Petitioner further states that, during CIRP, the Resolution Plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) submitted by the Petitioner was approved by the Committee of Creditors with 100% voting share. The said Resolution Plan came to be approved by the learned National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi (“NCLT”) vide Order dated 02.08.2024 passed in IA No. 25/2024 in CP (IB) No. 761(ND)/2022. Under the approved Resolution Plan, the claims of statutory and government authorities, including those of the Respondents, stood settled at Nil. Signed By:SHIKHA SEHGAL Signing Date:03.10.2026 16:02:45 Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 6553/2026 6. It has thus been urged that the same demonstrates that liabilities, which were the basis of imposing the status of DEL, pre- CIRP, stood extinguished upon approval of the aforesaid Resolution Plan and the consequent change in management/control of the Petitioner. The Petitioner states, that it submitted representations starting September 2025 apprising the Respondents of the learned NCLT approval order and seeking removal of the DEL status. However, despite repeated representations, the Respondents failed to remove the DEL status. 7. This Court vide interim order dated 26.05.2026, had permitted the Petitioner to execute/implement/adhere to a supply order dated 17.12.2025 (revised on 09.02.2026), which had been received by the Petitioner but could not be acted upon on account of it being placed in the DEL. The Union of India had challenged the same by way of LPA No. 531/2026, which was disposed of as withdrawn, vide order dated 20.07.2026, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, with cost of Rs. 50,000/- having been imposed upon the Union of India on account of its failure to file reply despite opportunity. 8. Even before this Court, despite being granted time to obtain instructions specifically on the merits of the case, nothing has been argued on merits by the Respondent and only preliminary/technical objections such as lack of territorial jurisdiction and existence of an alternate remedy have been agitated. 9. As regards the objection of territorial jurisdiction, the Petitioner has relied upon e-mail dated 27.04.2026 of the Office of the Joint Director General of Foreign Trade, Kanpur, whereby the Petitioner Signed By:SHIKHA SEHGAL Signing Date:03.10.2026 16:02:45 Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 6553/2026 was informed that the case is pending consideration before the Directorate General of Foreign Trade Headquarters, New Delhi and the Office is further awaiting instructions. Then a representation dated 30.04.2026 was preferred by the Petitioner before the DGFT Headquarters and the same remained undecided, which led to filing of the present writ petition. Hence, the same shows that DGFT Headquarters, New Delhi was seized of the matter and was the final decision-making authority and the grievance of the Petitioner is partly attributable to the continued inaction of the authorities situated in Delhi. Hence, it cannot be said that only the Courts situated in Kanpur/Uttar Pradesh would have the requisite jurisdiction. 10. On the aspect of availability of an alternate remedy, it is well- settled that a writ is maintainable even if an alternate remedy exists and the existence of such remedy does not strip away the constitutional powers of this Court. 11. The objection of non-impleadment of DGFT, Kanpur is also not sustainable as the Counter Affidavit filed on behalf of Respondent No. 1/ Union of India and Respondent No. 2/ DGFT Headquarters, Delhi, has been filed by Mr. Alok Dwivedi, Joint Director General of Foreign Trade in the Office of DGFT, Kanpur. 12. Insofar as the merits are concerned, it is pertinent to note that out of the ten impugned DEL orders, nine orders were passed on 05.09.2023 during the subsistence of the moratorium declared under Section 14 of the IBC (admitted on 09.06.2023) and it is well-settled that any coercive or adverse administrative order passed against a Corporate Debtor in violation of the statutory moratorium is void ab Signed By:SHIKHA SEHGAL Signing Date:03.10.2026 16:02:45 Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 6553/2026 initio. 13. 13. Even otherwise, it has been pointed out that during the CIRP, the Respondents had quantified it’s claim towards government dues on account of non-fulfillment of export obligations at approximately ₹15.66 Crores which was submitted in FORM- B as operational debt. The relevant extract of the FROM-B is reproduced herein below: - “ ” Signed By:SHIKHA SEHGAL Signing Date:03.10.2026 16:02:45 Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 6553/2026 14. Thus, non-fulfilment of the export performance obligation culminated in a monetary liability (for duty saved, along with interest and penalties). The Resolution Plan was submitted, which specifically stipulated that the government dues, including that of the Respondents stood settled at nil. The relevant extract of the terms Resolution Plan is reproduced herein below: - 15. In the schedule of Operational Creditors (Government Dues) set out in above order, the claim of DGFT Kanpur was explicitly recorded as admitted at ₹15,66,43,604.83, against which the amount proposed and approved was Nil (0%). The above Resolution Plan was approved by the learned NCLT vide Order dated 02.08.2024 and it was also noted that from the date of the approval of the Resolution Plan, any claim not included in the approved Resolution Plan is permanently extinguished, and no party retains the right to initiate or Signed By:SHIKHA SEHGAL Signing Date:03.10.2026 16:02:45 Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 6553/2026 pursue/continue any legal proceedings regarding such claims. 16. Thus, evidently, the primary breach as well as the attached performance obligations stood discharged and extinguished as the statutory framework of the IBC explicitly grants complete immunity to the Corporate Debtor and its new management from any liability or adverse action pertaining to defaults committed prior to the commencement of the CIRP. Further Section 31 (1) of the IBC specifically provides that once a resolution plan is approved by the Adjudicating Authority/NCLT, it becomes binding on all stakeholders, including creditors, employees, governments, and local authorities. The underlying objective is to enable the successful resolution applicant to take over and operate the corporate debtor as a going concern, without being burdened by antecedent claims and liabilities, thereby providing finality to the resolution process and avoiding a proliferation of litigation arising from unresolved claims pertaining to the period preceding the resolution. 17. Considering the conspectus of facts placed forth, this Court is of the opinion that continuing an administrative disability like the DEL status, which is essentially a coercive mechanism to enforce pre-CIRP export obligation, violates the “clean slate” principle. When undisputedly the Resolution Plan came to be approved by the learned NCLT and the Respondents neither challenged the approval order by the learned NCLT dated 02.08.2024 or sought any modification thereof, the Petitioner’s name should not have remained in the DEL, on account of the past any dues/defaults of the erstwhile management, that too when the same as pointed out by the Petitioner under the Signed By:SHIKHA SEHGAL Signing Date:03.10.2026 16:02:45 Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 6553/2026 Resolution plan stood settled at Nil. 18. Once the new management has taken over, continuation of such Denied Entry List even after approval of the Resolution Plan would be contrary to the “clean slate” principle under the IBC. Reference in this regard is made to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ghanshyam Mishra & Sons Private Limited v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited, (2021) 9 SCC 657, wherein it has been categorically held that all such claims which are not a part of the Resolution Plan shall stand extinguished and no person will be entitled to initiate or continue any proceedings in respect of any claim which is not a part of the Resolution Plan. 19. In view of the above, the impugned orders are set-aside and the Petitioner is directed to be removed from the DEL. 20. This Court is mindful that extinguishment of monetary claims would not preclude the Respondents from undertaking verification under the applicable provisions. It is, thus, clarified that the Respondents shall remain at liberty to undertake fresh verification in accordance with law to confirm the credentials of the new- management. In case any independent default or non-fulfilment of export obligation is found, the same shall constitute a fresh cause of action and the Respondents shall be at liberty to take appropriate action in accordance with law and pass fresh orders. 21. The petition is disposed, along with pending application(s), if any. AMIT MAHAJAN, J SEPTEMBER 30, 2026/“SS” Signed By:SHIKHA SEHGAL Signing Date:03.10.2026 16:02:45