Resolution applicant cannot challenge CoC's commercial decision after Section 31 approval despite implementation delays

NCLAT dismissed an appeal by an unsuccessful resolution applicant challenging approval of another's resolution plan. The appellant argued the successful applicant was ineligible due to failure to implement a previous resolution plan for Allied Strips Limited. NCLAT held that delay in implementation cannot be equated with failure to implement, particularly considering COVID-19 pandemic circumstances. The CoC had consciously considered the eligibility issue and made a commercial decision to accept the plan. Once CoC approves a resolution plan pending adjudication under Section 31 IBC, it cannot review its decision, and unsuccessful applicants have no locus to challenge CoC's commercial wisdom.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility of Respondent No. 3 as a Resolution Applicant.
2. Consideration of the Appellant's revised Resolution Plan.
3. Adjudicating Authority's decision on the premature application.
4. Commercial wisdom of the Committee of Creditors (CoC).
5. Compliance with the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) and related regulations.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Eligibility of Respondent No. 3 as a Resolution Applicant:
The Appellant claimed that Respondent No. 3 was ineligible due to its failure to implement resolution plans in other cases, specifically in the matters of Allied Strips Limited and Tirupati Infrastructure Private Limited. The Appellant argued that Respondent No. 3 had suppressed material facts and provided false undertakings. However, the Adjudicating Authority and the CoC considered these claims and determined that delays in implementation did not equate to failure under Regulation 38 (1B) of the CIRP Regulations. The CoC, after deliberation, accepted Respondent No. 3's explanation and did not find it disqualified under Section 29A of the IBC.

2. Consideration of the Appellant's Revised Resolution Plan:
The Appellant submitted multiple revised resolution plans, which the CoC found to be conditional and non-compliant with the CIRP regulations. Despite being given several opportunities, the Appellant's plans were consistently found wanting. The final revised plan submitted by the Appellant was also conditional and offered a lower amount than Respondent No. 3's plan. The CoC's commercial wisdom led them to approve Respondent No. 3's plan, which was deemed more feasible and viable.

3. Adjudicating Authority's Decision on the Premature Application:
The Adjudicating Authority dismissed the Appellant's application as premature, noting that it was filed before the voting on the resolution plan was completed. The Authority emphasized that the application was based on misconceived facts and circumstances that did not exist at the time of filing. The Authority also highlighted that the CoC was still negotiating with Respondent No. 3 when the application was filed.

4. Commercial Wisdom of the Committee of Creditors (CoC):
The CoC's decision to approve Respondent No. 3's resolution plan was based on their commercial wisdom, which is protected under the IBC. The Supreme Court has consistently held that the Adjudicating Authority and the Appellate Authority should not interfere with the CoC's commercial decisions as long as they comply with the provisions of the IBC and related regulations. The CoC considered the feasibility and viability of the plans and the maximization of the value of the corporate debtor's assets.

5. Compliance with the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) and Related Regulations:
The judgment emphasized that the resolution process must adhere to the timelines and procedural requirements set out in the IBC. The CoC's approval of Respondent No. 3's plan was within the statutory framework, and the Appellant's conditional plans were rightly rejected. The Adjudicating Authority's role is limited to ensuring compliance with the IBC and not to reassess the commercial decisions of the CoC.

Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed, with no order as to costs. The Adjudicating Authority was requested to urgently decide the application pending under Section 31 of the IBC. The judgment reaffirmed the principle that the commercial wisdom of the CoC is paramount and should not be interfered with by judicial bodies as long as it complies with the IBC and related regulations.

---