Shareholder challenges Resolution Professional under IBC for lack of transparency in approving Resolution Plan

The shareholder, challenging the Resolution Professional under IBC for lack of transparency in the approval process of a revised Resolution Plan, raised concerns about preferential treatment to MCGM. The Resolution Professional considered objections from the suspended Board of Directors, and the CoC reaffirmed the Resolution Plan's approval. The Adjudicating Authority emphasized challenging approved plans before higher courts, highlighting the Applicant's lack of standing for certain reliefs. The judgment deemed the Applicant's prayers irrelevant as information was shared through nominee directors, finding no merit in the claims and disposing of the application.

---

---

Issues:
1. Shareholder's application against Resolution Professional under IBC.
2. Alleged concealment of revised Resolution Plan.
3. Preferential treatment to MCGM.
4. Consideration of suspended Board of Directors' comments on Resolution Plan.
5. Challenge to Resolution Plan approval.
6. Locus standi of Applicant in seeking reliefs.

Analysis:
1. The shareholder, holding 49.9% equity share capital, filed an application against the Resolution Professional under IBC seeking disclosure of correspondence and documents related to a revised Resolution Plan dated 09.10.2018 allegedly not presented to the Adjudicating Authority. The application highlighted the lack of transparency in the Resolution Plan approval process.

2. The application raised concerns about preferential treatment given to MCGM, an operational creditor, during CoC meetings and sharing of the Resolution Plan with MCGM, which was not required by the Code. It argued that such treatment violated the statutory obligations under the Code and emphasized the need for equal treatment of creditors in the resolution process.

3. The Resolution Professional shared the Resolution Plan with suspended Board of Directors, considering their comments and objections, as per the judgment of the Supreme Court. The CoC reaffirmed its approval of the Resolution Plan after due consideration of the comments raised. The Adjudicating Authority noted that objections to the Resolution Plan were found unsustainable given the involvement of all stakeholders in the process.

4. The Adjudicating Authority emphasized the principle that once a Resolution Plan is approved by the CoC and placed before the Authority, challenges can be made before the Appellate Authority or the Supreme Court if legal issues arise. The Applicant's lack of locus standi to seek certain reliefs was highlighted, and the application was disposed of based on the merits presented.

5. The judgment concluded that the Applicant's prayers regarding MCGM's claim and connected documents were deemed irrelevant as vital information had been shared with the Applicant through its nominee directors. The involvement of all stakeholders in the resolution process, including the nominee directors, was considered in reaffirming the Resolution Plan's approval by the CoC. The Adjudicating Authority found no merit in the Applicant's claims, leading to the disposal of the application.

---