Tribunal rejects bid to revise resolution plan by unsuccessful applicants

The Tribunal rejected the application filed by proposed unsuccessful Resolution Plan Applicants (RPAs) to direct the Resolution Professional (RP) to consider a revised offer. The Committee of Creditors (COC) had already approved the resolution plan with 100% voting. The petitioner's insistence on disclosure of individual scores and bid amounts, as well as their absence during the crucial COC meeting where the plan was approved, were noted. The Tribunal deemed the application infructuous and lacking bona fides, emphasizing the importance of active participation in the resolution process. The application was rejected, and the matter was disposed of accordingly.

---

---

Issues:
- Application filed by proposed unsuccessful Resolution Plan Applicants (RPAs) to direct the RP to consider a revised offer.
- Approval of resolution plan by Committee of Creditors (COC) with 100% voting.
- Petitioner's insistence on individual score and bid amount disclosure.
- Petitioner's absence during COC meeting where the resolution plan was approved.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an application filed by the proposed unsuccessful Resolution Plan Applicants (RPAs) requesting the Tribunal to direct the Resolution Professional (RP) to consider a revised offer. The resolution plan submitted by the highest bidder had already been approved by the Committee of Creditors (COC) with 100% voting and was submitted for approval. The petitioner had insisted on disclosure of individual scores and bid amounts of all RPAs before presenting their plan, which was deemed unnecessary. The petitioner also abstained from attending a crucial COC meeting where the resolution plan was approved, indicating a lack of participation.

The Tribunal noted that since the resolution plan of the highest bidder had already been approved with 100% voting, the application filed by the RPAs was not only infructuous but also lacked bona fides. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of timely and active participation in the resolution process, emphasizing that the petitioner's absence during the COC meeting where the plan was approved was a significant factor in the rejection of their application. The judgment concluded by rejecting the application and disposing of the matter accordingly.

---