Appeal challenging Resolution Plan approval dismissed, CoC decision upheld. Appellant's arguments rejected.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal challenging the Resolution Plan approval, upholding the order and allowing plan implementation to proceed. The appellant's arguments regarding net worth eligibility, certificate validity, adherence to laws, asset valuation, locus standi, and CoC's commercial wisdom were rejected. The CoC's decision with 93% voting shares was deemed valid, and no legal flaws were found in the approval process. The appeal was dismissed without costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Compliance with net worth eligibility criteria by the Successful Resolution Applicant.
2. Validity and accuracy of the net worth certificate submitted by the Successful Resolution Applicant.
3. Adherence to the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013 and Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
4. Valuation of the Corporate Debtor’s assets by the Resolution Professional.
5. Locus standi of the Appellant to challenge the Resolution Plan.
6. Commercial wisdom of the Committee of Creditors (CoC) in approving the Resolution Plan.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Compliance with net worth eligibility criteria by the Successful Resolution Applicant:
The appellant contended that the Successful Resolution Applicant (Respondent No.3) did not meet the net worth eligibility criteria of Rs. 5 crores as required by the Committee of Creditors (CoC). The initial net worth certificate dated 1st October 2018 showed a net worth of Rs. 637.40 lakhs but included another company, JSV Motors & Constructions Pvt. Ltd., which was not a Resolution Applicant. The revised net worth certificate dated 15th March 2019 was submitted later, correcting the error.

2. Validity and accuracy of the net worth certificate submitted by the Successful Resolution Applicant:
The appellant argued that the net worth certificate was fraudulent and did not comply with the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013. The net worth of Respondent No.3 was only Rs. 24.65 lakhs and Rs. 2.93 crores as of March 2018 and 2019, respectively, which was below the eligibility criteria. The Respondent No.3 clarified that the initial error was a typographical mistake and the revised certificate accurately reflected their net worth.

3. Adherence to the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013 and Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016:
The appellant claimed that the provisions of Section 25(2)(h) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) were violated as the Resolution Professional accepted the bid despite the net worth discrepancy. The Tribunal found that the revised net worth certificate was considered by the CoC and the approval process was in compliance with the IBC and its regulations.

4. Valuation of the Corporate Debtor’s assets by the Resolution Professional:
The appellant alleged that the valuation was flawed as it did not include the entire assets of the Corporate Debtor, only the plant and machinery. The Tribunal noted that two registered valuers were appointed, and their reports were considered by the CoC. The Hon'ble Apex Court's judgment in "Maharashtra Seamless Ltd. vs. Padmanabhan Venkatesh & Ors." was cited, emphasizing that the valuation assists the CoC in decision-making and does not need to match the maximized asset value.

5. Locus standi of the Appellant to challenge the Resolution Plan:
The Respondent No.2 argued that the appellant had no locus standi as he did not raise objections during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) and had previously claimed to be falsely arrayed as a Director. The Tribunal agreed, noting that the appellant participated in CoC meetings without raising eligibility issues and cannot challenge the commercial wisdom of the CoC post-approval.

6. Commercial wisdom of the Committee of Creditors (CoC) in approving the Resolution Plan:
The Tribunal emphasized the paramount status of the CoC's commercial wisdom, as established in "K. Shashidhar vs. Indian Overseas Bank and Ors." and "Committee of Creditors of Educomp Solutions Ltd. vs. Ebix Singapore Pte. Ltd. & Anr." The CoC approved the Resolution Plan with 93% voting shares, and the Tribunal found no material irregularity or legal infirmity in the process.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in the appellant's arguments. The impugned order approving the Resolution Plan was upheld, and the implementation of the plan was allowed to continue. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.

---