This is in continuation to our previous disclosures regarding the status quo pronounced by Hon''ble NCLAT, Chennai Bench on October 1, 2026. The order dated. October 1, 2026 uploaded on NCLAT''s website is attached herewith, with a request to take the above orders on record and for dissemination on BSE website.

Dated: October 14, 2026 The Corporate Relations Department BSE Limited Phiroze Jeejeebhoy Towers Dalal Street, Mumbai - 400 001, Sub: Disclosure Pursuant to Regulation 30 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2015 Ref: 1. Scrip Code: 532336 2. Our intimation dated. October 2, 2026. This is in continuation to our previous disclosures regarding the status quo pronounced by Hon’ble NCLAT, Chennai Bench on October 1, 2026. The order dated. October 1, 2026 uploaded on NCLAT’s website is attached herewith, with a request to take the above orders on record and for dissemination on BSE website. Thanking you, Yours faithfully, For Baron Infotech Limited CS Dr Ahalada Rao Vummenthala Erstwhile Resolution Professional & Chairperson-Monitoring Committee -Baron Infotech Limited Insolvency Professional (IBBI/IPA-002/IP-N00074/2017-2018/10172) AFA Valid Date: 27/11/2025 to 31/12/2026 Flat no 113, Sri Datta Sai Commercial Complex, RTC Cross Roads Musheerabad 500020, Hyderabad, Telangana State phone no: 040-27623101 RP Office Address: CS Dr Ahalada Rao Vummenthala-Resolution Professional IBBI Reg.No: (IBBI/IPA-002/IP-N00074/2017-2018/10172) Email: rp.ahaladarao@gmail.com Add: Flat No. 113, Block - B, Sri Datta Sai Commercial Complex, Opp: Sapthagiri theatre, RTC 'X' Roads, Beside Metro Stn Gate, A Pillar No 1096/1097-Hyderabad - 500 020. NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 516/2026 (IA Nos. 1468, 1469 & 1470/2026) In the matter of: Vivek Kumar Ratakonda, (Resolution Applicant of Baron Infotech Ltd) … Appellant Ahalada Rao Vummenthala, (RP of Baron Infotech Limited) & 2 Ors. … Respondents Present : For Appellant : Mr. TK Bhaskar, Advocate For Ms. Pavni Dada & Ms. Divya K, Advocates For Respondents : Mr. Krishna CV Grandhi, Senior Advocate For Mr. Avinash Alladi & Mr. Kartikey Raja, Advocates for R1/RP Mr. Ahalada Rao Vummenthala, RP Mr. M Maharishi Viswaraj, Advocate for R2 Mr. Sankaranarayanan, Senior Advocate For Ms. Janani Shankar, Advocate for R3 ORDER (Hybrid Mode) 01.10.2026: 1. This appeal is preferred by a defeated resolution plan proponent who challenges the approval given to the resolution plan of the 3rd respondent herein by the learned Adjudicating Authority. The quintessential facts relevant for deciding this appeal do not raise any complications, and they are listed below: (a) Certain M/s. Baron Infotech Limited was drawn into CIRP, in the course of which the 1st respondent, on the instructions of the CoC (2nd respondent herein), issued a RFRP (Request for resolution plan). In Comp App (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 516 / 2026 Page 1 of 9 response to this RFRP, the appellant and three others submitted their respective resolution plans. In the 21st meeting of the CoC held on 02.04.2026, the appellant’s plan was ranked H1. However, the CoC, in its wisdom, chose to go for a challenge mechanism which is enabled by the RFRP. This was discussed and resolved in Agenda Item No.7 of the CoC meeting and it is as below: “ITEM NO. 7: TO PERUSE AND ASSESS THE MODALITIES OF CHALLENGING MECHANISM The Chairperson informed the members of the Committee of Creditors (“CoC”) that, in the course of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP”), and with a view to maximize the value of the assets of the Corporate Debtor, it was proposed to undertake a Challenge Mechanism amongst the prospective resolution applicants. The members were apprised that the Challenge Mechanism is intended to provide an opportunity to the prospective resolution applicants to improve their financial proposals in a transparent and competitive manner, in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and the regulations framed thereunder. The Resolution Professional (“RP”) further placed before the CoC a detailed process note outlining the manner, timelines, eligibility conditions, evaluation criteria, and other terms governing the Challenge Mechanism. The modalities of the Challenge Mechanism were explained in detail during the meeting. The members of the CoC deliberated upon the matter and reviewed the process note placed before them. Pursuant to such Comp App (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 516 / 2026 Page 2 of 9 deliberations, the CoC suggested that the Resolution Professional disclose the rankings of the prospective resolution applicants as per the evaluation matrix and provide a period of seven (7) days to enable the applicants to improve their Resolution Plans under the Challenge Mechanism. The Resolution Professional took note of the suggestions of the CoC and agreed to implement the same.” (b) Thereafter, on 04.04.2026, the resolution professional e-mailed the appellant, in which the resolution professional informed the appellant that his plan has been ranked - H1, and he also required the appellant to improve the quantitative and qualitative parameters and to submit a revised plan within 7 days. The said e-mail also refers to the process advisory to be adopted for the said purpose. (c) In para 3 of the process advisory, under the caption ‘Opportunity for Submission of Revised Resolution Plans by disclosing ranking’, the following is provided:- “3. Opportunity for Submission of Revised Resolution Plans by disclosing ranking After communication of rankings, all Resolution Applicants shall be provided a one-time opportunity to submit a revised or improved Resolution Plan, if they so desire. The revised plan may include improvements in: > Financial proposal to creditors > Upfront payment > Amount of fresh funds infusion > Implementation timeline > Collateral security to be provided > Other parameter forming part of the Evaluation Matrix Comp App (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 516 / 2026 Page 3 of 9 The Resolution Applicant shall submit the revised plan within 7 days from the date of communication from R.P. for submission of Revised Plan. Failure to submit a revised plan within the prescribed timeline shall result in the earlier submitted plan being treated as the final plan of the concerned Resolution Applicant, CoC reserves the right to accept/reject the same accordingly, without assigning any reason or any more opportunity.” (d) Further, in para 6 of the said process advisory, a rider is included, and it reads as below:- “The Resolution Professional and the Committee of Creditors reserve the right to modify, amend or supplement this Process Advisory at any time without prior notice, in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Code and CIRP Regulations. No Swiss Challenge Mechanism will be conducted for selecting the Successful Resolution Applicant, the Challenge Mechanism as mentioned above is the final.” (e) Be that as it may, post submission of his revised plan, the appellant came to know that the plan of the 3rd respondent has been approved by the CoC. And he also got to know from the portal of BSE that the 3rd respondent, this time around, is bringing in certain M/s Purple Talk India Private Limited (which is an India based subsidiary of a US-based company) which is proposed to be merged with the corporate debtor. This apart, the appellant also found that on 06.04.2026, the board of Purple Talk has approved this merger and convened an EGM on 09.04.2026 for obtaining the approval of its shareholders. Indeed, according to the Comp App (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 516 / 2026 Page 4 of 9 appellant, both these processes have happened between 04.04.2026, the date of the email of the resolution professional inviting a revised qualitative and quantitative plan, the last date for submitting, which was to end on 11.04.2026. 2. On these basic facts, the appellant contends that the facts disclose very strong circumstances indicating that there has been match-fixing in finalising the plan where the resolution professional's role cannot be discounted. At any rate, the said circumstances give rise to strong doubts on the very integrity and puri [Showing first 8,000 characters — download PDF for full document]