Adjudicating Authority's Jurisdiction Overstepped in Bidding Order

The Adjudicating Authority's order for fresh bidding was set aside for exceeding its jurisdiction by interfering with the Committee of Creditors' commercial decision. Appeals challenging the evaluation process, alleging bias, and contesting the bid amount were dismissed. The case was remitted back to the Adjudicating Authority for approval of the Resolution Plan in line with the given directions.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the Adjudicating Authority's order for fresh bidding despite CoC's approval of the Resolution Plan.
2. Evaluation process and transparency of the Resolution Professional's conduct.
3. Allegation of bias and non-compliance with statutory provisions by the Resolution Professional.
4. Fair market value of the corporate debtor's assets and the bid amount.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of Adjudicating Authority's Order for Fresh Bidding:
The primary issue was whether the Adjudicating Authority exceeded its jurisdiction by ordering fresh bidding despite the Committee of Creditors (CoC) approving the Resolution Plan with an 84.70% vote share. The judgment highlighted that the Adjudicating Authority's power under Section 31 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (I&B Code) is limited to ensuring the Resolution Plan meets the requirements of Section 30(2). The Supreme Court in K. Sashidhar v. Indian Overseas Bank emphasized that the commercial wisdom of the CoC is paramount and non-justiciable. The Adjudicating Authority cannot interfere with the CoC's decision, which is based on thorough examination and collective business judgment. The direction for re-bidding was found to be beyond the Adjudicating Authority's jurisdiction, as it interfered with the CoC's commercial decision, which is not permissible under the law.

2. Evaluation Process and Transparency of the Resolution Professional's Conduct:
The appellant in Company Appeal No. 184 of 2020 challenged the evaluation process, alleging non-transparency and manipulation by the Resolution Professional (RP). However, the judgment found no evidence of manipulation by the RP. The role of the RP is that of a facilitator, and the evaluation matrix falls within the CoC's commercial wisdom, which is non-justiciable. The appeal on these grounds was dismissed.

3. Allegation of Bias and Non-Compliance with Statutory Provisions:
The appellant in Company Appeal No. 78 of 2020 contended that the process was biased towards the H1 bidder and that the RP did not comply with the provisions of Sections 30(2) and 30(4) of the I&B Code. The judgment reiterated that the Adjudicating Authority's power of judicial scrutiny is limited and does not allow interference with the CoC's commercial decisions. The appeal was dismissed as the allegations did not justify judicial scrutiny.

4. Fair Market Value of Corporate Debtor's Assets and Bid Amount:
The appellant argued that their bid was higher than the approved bid and that the fair market value of the corporate debtor's assets was not considered. The judgment referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Maharashtra Seamless Limited, which stated that the court should defer to the commercial wisdom of the creditors rather than engage in quantitative analysis. The appeal on these grounds was dismissed, reinforcing that the CoC's decision on the bid amount is non-justiciable.

Conclusion:
The Adjudicating Authority's order for fresh bidding was set aside as it exceeded its jurisdiction by interfering with the CoC's commercial decision. The appeals challenging the evaluation process, alleging bias, and contesting the bid amount were dismissed. The matter was remitted back to the Adjudicating Authority to pass an order for approval of the Resolution Plan in accordance with the directions given.

---