Appeal on Corporate Insolvency Resolution Split Order Resolved with Emphasis on Due Process and Fairness

The appeal against the split order in a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process involving a resolution plan's valuation was disposed of. The Tribunal directed the Resolution Professional to refer the matter to a third Member for opinion, emphasizing adherence to due process for a fair resolution. Dissenting orders by two Members were noted, with further determination left to the third Member and potential review by the Appellate Tribunal if needed. The judgment underscored the importance of a lawful and comprehensive resolution process in corporate insolvency cases to ensure fairness and justice.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Appeal against the split order in a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process regarding a resolution plan's valuation.
2. Requirement for referral to the President, National Company Law Tribunal for a third Member's opinion.
3. Dissenting orders by two members and the need for further determination.

Analysis:
1. The judgment pertains to an appeal against a split order in a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process involving a resolution plan's valuation for a Corporate Debtor. The Resolution Professional had filed a plan approved by the Committee of Creditors with a significant voting share. However, a dissenting Financial Creditor raised concerns about the valuation, leading to one Member (Judicial) calling for fresh valuation while the other Member (Technical) dissented with a separate order. The matter was not referred to the President, National Company Law Tribunal for a third Member's opinion.

2. The Tribunal directed the Resolution Professional to bring the issue to the attention of the Adjudicating Authority's Bench comprising the same Members, who would then refer the matter to a third Member as per the law. The Resolution Professional was also instructed to inform the President, National Company Law Tribunal, who could order the matter to be placed before the third Member. The judgment emphasized the importance of following due process in such situations to ensure a fair and lawful resolution.

3. Given the dissenting orders by the two Members, the Tribunal refrained from considering the legality or propriety of the orders or any adverse remarks against the Resolution Professional. These aspects were left for determination by the third Member, with the possibility of later review by the Appellate Tribunal if required. The appeal was disposed of with these observations, highlighting the need for a comprehensive and lawful resolution process in corporate insolvency cases to uphold fairness and justice.

---