CIRP valuation, Section 12A timing, and CoC commercial wisdom uphold approval of the resolution plan.

Valuation of the corporate debtor was upheld where registered valuers were appointed under the CIRP Regulations and a third valuer was used after significant variation, and objections based on an earlier private valuation or alleged lack of physical verification were rejected. A belated Section 12A withdrawal proposal, procedural complaints on timelines and forms, and the challenge to related-party classification also failed because no legal infirmity or prejudice was shown. Differential treatment between related and unrelated creditors and pending avoidance applications did not invalidate the plan. The prospective applicant who never submitted a resolution plan lacked locus to challenge the process, and the plan was approved as it satisfied the Code and Regulations, with the CoC's commercial wisdom remaining limitedly reviewable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the challenge to the valuation of the corporate debtor and the process adopted by the resolution professional warranted interference; (ii) Whether the alleged non-consideration of a Section 12A proposal vitiated the resolution process; (iii) Whether the procedural irregularities in the CIRP, including timelines and issuance of forms, justified rejection of the resolution plan; (iv) Whether the classification of certain creditors as related parties was illegal; (v) Whether the plan was liable to be rejected on the ground of differential treatment to related parties and on the basis of pending avoidance applications; (vi) Whether a prospective resolution applicant who did not submit a plan had locus to challenge the process; and (vii) Whether the resolution plan satisfied the requirements for approval under the Code and Regulations.

Issue (i): Whether the challenge to the valuation of the corporate debtor and the process adopted by the resolution professional warranted interference.

Analysis: The valuation was undertaken by registered valuers appointed in accordance with the CIRP Regulations, and where significant variation arose, a third valuer was appointed. The fair value and liquidation value were arrived at on the basis of the regulatory framework governing appointment of valuers and determination of value. The objections based on an earlier private valuation and on alleged lack of physical verification did not establish any legal infirmity sufficient to disturb the process.

Conclusion: The valuation challenge was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the alleged non-consideration of a Section 12A proposal vitiated the resolution process.

Analysis: The proposal for withdrawal was raised only at the stage when the resolution plan was about to be voted upon and was not placed in the prescribed manner or at the appropriate stage. The record showed that the attempt was belated and did not displace the ongoing resolution process or the commercial decision of the CoC.

Conclusion: The plea based on Section 12A was rejected.

Issue (iii): Whether the procedural irregularities in the CIRP, including timelines and issuance of forms, justified rejection of the resolution plan.

Analysis: The timelines under the Regulations are directory in the context of the overall insolvency framework and cannot be applied so rigidly as to defeat the resolution process. The objectors did not demonstrate any prejudice caused by the alleged deviations, and persons admitted belatedly into the CoC could not reopen completed steps merely on procedural complaints.

Conclusion: The objections based on procedural irregularities were rejected.

Issue (iv): Whether the classification of certain creditors as related parties was illegal.

Analysis: The second proviso to Section 21(2) creates a limited exception for financial creditors regulated by a financial sector regulator only where the related-party status arises solely from conversion or substitution of debt into equity or comparable prescribed transactions. That condition was not established on the facts, and the resolution professional's classification was found to be legally valid.

Conclusion: The challenge to the related-party classification failed.

Issue (v): Whether the plan was liable to be rejected on the ground of differential treatment to related parties and on the basis of pending avoidance applications.

Analysis: The commercial allocation of payments among classes of creditors lies within the domain of the CoC and the resolution applicant, subject to the minimum requirements under the Code. The Code does not mandate parity between related and unrelated creditors. As regards avoidance applications, the plan contained provision dealing with their fate, and the objections based on a different factual setting were not sufficient to invalidate the plan.

Conclusion: The objections on discrimination and avoidance applications were rejected.

Issue (vi): Whether a prospective resolution applicant who did not submit a plan had locus to challenge the process.

Analysis: A party that merely sought additional time and did not submit a resolution plan acquired no vested right to have its proposal considered. In the absence of submission of a plan, such a party could not maintain a challenge to the approved resolution plan.

Conclusion: The application by the prospective resolution applicant was not maintainable.

Issue (vii): Whether the resolution plan satisfied the requirements for approval under the Code and Regulations.

Analysis: The plan provided for payment of insolvency resolution process costs, treatment of operational creditors, management and implementation of the plan, compliance with applicable law, and approval by the CoC with the requisite voting share. The limited jurisdiction of the adjudicating authority did not permit interference with the CoC's commercial wisdom once the statutory requirements were met.

Conclusion: The resolution plan was approved.

Final Conclusion: The objections to the resolution process were overruled, the approved resolution plan was sanctioned, and the corporate insolvency resolution process was brought to a close with binding effect on the corporate debtor and stakeholders.

Ratio Decidendi: In an insolvency resolution proceeding, the adjudicating authority may interfere only on the limited statutory grounds under Section 30(2) and Section 31 of the Code, and cannot substitute its view for the commercial wisdom of the Committee of Creditors once the resolution plan satisfies the statutory requirements.

---