The Mumbai bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) on Thursday dismissed separate petitions by the promoter, two workers\u2019 unions and a resolution applicant of Innoventive Industries, paving the way for the company\u2019s liquidation. The company owes lenders Rs 955 crore.\u00a0 After resolution plans by the company\u2019s promoter Chandu Laxman Chavan and by a resolution applicant \u2014 Suyash Outsourcing \u2014 were not approved by committee of creditors, they had decided to approach the NCLT. Innoventive was the first company to be referred by lenders to the NCLT under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). Private sector lender ICICI Bank had referred the company to the bankruptcy court in December last year following repayment defaults. Other lenders to the company include Central Bank of India, Axis Bank, Bank of Baroda, Bank of India, State Bank of India and IDBI Bank. Earlier this year, Innoventive Industries had filed a petition before the Bombay High Court challenging the validity of the IBC. After the high court dismissed its petition, Innoventive had moved the Supreme Court, which dismissed its petition as well. In November last year, the company\u2019s debt recast under at the corporate debt restructuring (CDR) cell had failed and it had exited the CDR cell. Its debt recast was approved by the CDR cell in September 2014.\u00a0 In FY17, Innoventive reported a net loss of Rs 482 crore on Rs 307 crore in revenues, primarily owing to an interest outgo of Rs 152 crore. Other promoters of the company include Ajay Narhar Yervadekar (0.53%), Sanjay Waghulade (4.28%), Bhade Sanjay Tanaji (2.28%), Ravindra Waman Katre (6.41%) and Shubhangi Pandurang Jadhav (4.53%). Innoventive Industries is the flagship company of the Innoventive Group. The steelmaker owns five manufacturing facilities located around Pune and employs nearly 680 people; the plant at the village Pimple Jagtap near Pune is recognised as a megaproject by the government of Maharashtra, according to the company\u2019s website. The company had said it since it was declared as a relief undertaking under the Maharashtra Relief Undertaking (Special Provisions) Act and, therefore, it was under a moratorium for repayments. By an order on January 17 the NCLT bench in Mumbai held that the code would prevail against the Maharashtra Act and admitted the case under IBC.