Tribunal emphasizes merit-based decision-making in insolvency proceedings, criticizes CoCs for mechanical rejections.

The Tribunal directed the Committee of Creditors (CoCs) to establish a standardized procedure for evaluating Resolution Plans and ordered the liquidation of the Corporate Debtor due to the rejection of the Plan without proper assessment. The judgment stressed the significance of legal compliance, merit-based decision-making, and adherence to Court orders in insolvency proceedings, criticizing the CoCs for mechanical rejections and emphasizing the need for a structured approach in assessing Resolution Plans to align with the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code regime.

---

---

Issues involved:
1. Reconsideration of rejected Resolution Plan by Resolution Professional and Committee of Creditors (CoC).
2. Eligibility of Promoters as Resolution Applicants under Section 29A of the I&B Code, 2016.
3. Rejection of Resolution Plan based on various grounds by CoCs.
4. Compliance with previous orders of the Authority.
5. Grounds for rejection of Resolution Plan by CoCs.
6. Liquidation of the Corporate Debtor.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Reconsideration of rejected Resolution Plan
The Tribunal considered an application filed by prospective Resolution Applicants against the Resolution Professional and CoC, seeking direction to reconsider the rejection of their Resolution Plan. The Applicants claimed to be Promoters of the Corporate Debtor and argued that the rejection was premature, lacking proper consideration, and based on erroneous grounds. They emphasized that their Plan offered a higher value than the liquidation value, making it beneficial for all stakeholders. The Tribunal found that the rejection lacked merit and expressed displeasure towards the CoC member for non-compliance with previous orders.

Issue 2: Eligibility of Promoters as Resolution Applicants
The Applicants contended that they were not disqualified under Section 29A of the I&B Code, 2016, based on a previous Order declaring the Corporate Debtor as an MSME. They argued that the CoCs failed to consider this Order while rejecting their Plan. The Tribunal agreed with the Applicants, highlighting that the CoCs disregarded the legal implications of the previous Order and rejected the Plan without valid reasons.

Issue 3: Rejection of Resolution Plan by CoCs
The CoCs rejected the Resolution Plan citing various grounds, including alleged default status of the Applicants, pending applications under I&B Code sections, and perceived inadequacies in the Plan. The Tribunal scrutinized each ground and found them insufficient for outright rejection. It criticized the CoCs for mechanical rejection without proper evaluation, emphasizing the need for merit-based consideration.

Issue 4: Compliance with Previous Orders
The Tribunal noted that the CoCs failed to comply with the previous Order declaring the Corporate Debtor as an MSME, leading to a disregard for legal directives. It expressed strong disapproval of the CoC member's actions in rejecting the Plan based on discredited grounds, highlighting the importance of upholding Court orders and legal principles.

Issue 5: Grounds for Rejection of Resolution Plan
The CoCs rejected the Resolution Plan based on grounds like non-submission of stipulated funds, alleged default status, and hypothetical considerations regarding pending applications. The Tribunal found these grounds inadequate and criticized the CoCs for a lack of proper evaluation and mechanical rejection, leading to a decision in favor of the Applicants.

Issue 6: Liquidation of the Corporate Debtor
Due to the prolonged CIR Process and the rejection of the Resolution Plan, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to order the liquidation of the Corporate Debtor. It emphasized the need for a Standard Operating Procedure for CoCs to evaluate Resolution Plans effectively, ensuring compliance with the I&B Code regime.

In conclusion, the Tribunal directed the CoCs to develop a standardized procedure for assessing Resolution Plans and ordered the liquidation of the Corporate Debtor due to the rejection of the Plan without proper evaluation. The judgment highlighted the importance of legal compliance, merit-based decision-making, and adherence to Court orders in insolvency proceedings.

---