Resolution plan compliance under insolvency law requires section 30(2) conformity and cannot include lease eviction reliefs.

A resolution plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code must satisfy the mandatory requirements of section 30(2) before approval under section 31. A plan framed on an "as is where is" basis may still fail where it is made conditional on extinguishing claims, discharging public dues, or removing an existing lessee, because such contingencies can make implementation uncertain and bring the plan into conflict with law. The insolvency adjudicating forum also cannot determine tenancy rights, order eviction of a leaseholder, or cancel a lease as part of plan approval, since those matters lie before the competent legal forum.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the resolution plan approved by the committee of creditors satisfied the requirements of section 30(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and could be approved under section 31; (ii) whether the Adjudicating Authority had jurisdiction, while considering the plan, to direct eviction of the existing leaseholder and cancellation of the lease as a condition of implementation.

Issue (i): whether the resolution plan approved by the committee of creditors satisfied the requirements of section 30(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and could be approved under section 31.

Analysis: The committee of creditors' commercial wisdom is ordinarily not open to appellate review, but the Adjudicating Authority must still ensure that the plan conforms to the mandatory requirements of section 30(2). The plan in question was submitted on an "as is where is" and "as is what is" basis, yet it was made subject to several conditions, including extinguishment of claims and discharge of public dues. The plan was also contingent on removal of the existing lessee, making implementation uncertain and placing it in conflict with the statutory requirement that the plan not contravene law.

Conclusion: The plan did not satisfy section 30(2) and could not be approved under section 31.

Issue (ii): whether the Adjudicating Authority had jurisdiction, while considering the plan, to direct eviction of the existing leaseholder and cancellation of the lease as a condition of implementation.

Analysis: The relief sought would require determination of tenancy or lease rights and eviction through the appropriate legal forum. The insolvency forum could not, within the approval of a resolution plan, assume jurisdiction to adjudicate and eviction of the leaseholder or cancel the lease. Since the plan itself was conditional upon such eviction, it could not be implemented in its approved form and therefore fell foul of section 30(2)(e).

Conclusion: The Adjudicating Authority had no such jurisdiction.

Final Conclusion: The resolution plan was rejected, liquidation was ordered, and the corporate debtor was directed to proceed into liquidation as a going concern with a liquidator appointed in place of the existing resolution professional.

Ratio Decidendi: A resolution plan can be approved only if it complies with the mandatory requirements of section 30(2), and the insolvency adjudicating forum cannot grant reliefs, such as eviction of a leaseholder, that require adjudication by another competent forum.

---