Tribunal Invalidates Withdrawal of Resolution Plan Post-Approval; Upholds Plan's Binding Nature

The Tribunal held that the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT) erred in allowing the withdrawal of the Resolution Plan, as it lacked jurisdiction to permit withdrawal post-approval by the Committee of Creditors. The withdrawal application was deemed barred by Res Judicata, having been previously rejected. The Resolution Plan's validity extends beyond the initial six months post-submission, remaining binding upon CoC approval. Delays in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process were not deemed grounds for withdrawal. Concerns over investigations by SFIO and CBI were addressed under Section 32A of the IBC. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the unsustainable withdrawal decision.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of Adjudicating Authority.
2. Withdrawal of Resolution Plan.
3. Applicability of Res Judicata.
4. Validity of Resolution Plan.
5. Impact of delay in Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP).
6. Investigation and audit concerns.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of Adjudicating Authority:
The Appellant contended that the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT) erroneously exercised its jurisdiction by allowing the withdrawal of the Resolution Plan, which was beyond its statutory powers. The Appellant argued that the authority should operate within the confines of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) and referred to precedents to support this claim.

2. Withdrawal of Resolution Plan:
The Adjudicating Authority allowed the 1st Respondent (Successful Resolution Applicant) to withdraw its Resolution Plan, citing that an unwilling and reluctant resolution applicant cannot ensure effective implementation. The Appellant argued that the Resolution Plan, once approved by the Committee of Creditors (CoC), becomes binding, and withdrawal should not be permitted. The Tribunal held that the Adjudicating Authority had no jurisdiction to permit the withdrawal of the Resolution Plan after its approval by the CoC.

3. Applicability of Res Judicata:
The Appellant argued that the withdrawal application was barred by Res Judicata, as the issues raised were previously decided in an earlier application (CA 1252/2019). The Tribunal agreed, stating that the grounds for withdrawal were already rejected in the prior application, making the subsequent application barred by Res Judicata.

4. Validity of Resolution Plan:
The 1st Respondent claimed that the Resolution Plan was only valid for six months from submission and became commercially unviable due to delays. The Appellant countered that the six-month period was the minimum validity for CoC acceptance, not for indefinite approval. The Tribunal held that the Resolution Plan remains binding post-CoC approval, conditional to the Adjudicating Authority's approval.

5. Impact of Delay in CIRP:
The 1st Respondent cited delays in the CIRP process as a reason for withdrawal, arguing that the financial position of the Corporate Debtor could have deteriorated. The Tribunal noted that delays caused by the court should not disadvantage the parties involved, referencing the principle "Actus curiae neminem gravabit."

6. Investigation and Audit Concerns:
The 1st Respondent expressed concerns regarding ongoing investigations by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The Tribunal found that no special investigation audit was conducted, and Section 32A of the IBC grants immunity to the Resolution Applicant from offences committed by the Corporate Debtor before the commencement of CIRP.

Result:
The Tribunal concluded that the Adjudicating Authority's decision to allow the withdrawal of the Resolution Plan was unsustainable in law. The impugned order dated 02.01.2020 was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with no costs. The CA No. 1816(PB)/2019 was dismissed, and the associated I.A. No. 531/2020 was closed.

---