Tribunal instructs CoC to reconsider all Resolution Plans, emphasizes fair evaluation.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders, directing the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) to resume from the stage of considering all Resolution Plans, including the Appellant's revised plan. The Committee of Creditors (CoC) was instructed to evaluate all plans within the extended timelines, excluding the period of judicial intervention from the computation of the extended timelines. The Tribunal found the rejection of the Appellant's revised offer by the Resolution Professional to be unjustified and emphasized the need for fair consideration of all plans within the framework of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Rejection of Appellant's revised offer by the Resolution Professional.
2. Approval of the Resolution Plan by the Committee of Creditors (CoC).
3. Compliance with the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (I&B Code) timelines.
4. Commercial wisdom of the CoC.
5. Extension of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) period.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Rejection of Appellant's revised offer by the Resolution Professional:
The Appellant submitted a revised Resolution Plan on 14th February 2020, which was rejected by the Resolution Professional without being placed before the CoC. The Appellant argued that this rejection violated Sections 25(2)(i) and 30(3) of the I&B Code, which mandate the Resolution Professional to present all Resolution Plans to the CoC. The Appellant contended that their revised plan offered a higher upfront payment compared to the Successful Resolution Applicant's plan, thus aligning with the principle of asset maximization under the I&B Code.

2. Approval of the Resolution Plan by the Committee of Creditors (CoC):
The CoC approved the Resolution Plan of the highest bidder, Ngaitlang Dhar (H1 Bidder), with 100% voting on 12th February 2020. However, there were conflicting records regarding the approval date. The Appellant disputed this, emphasizing that the CoC's approval occurred on 6th March 2020, not 12th February 2020, as indicated in the impugned orders. The Tribunal found that the Resolution Plan was not approved on 12th February 2020, as the CoC's higher authority was still considering it, necessitating an extension of the CIRP period.

3. Compliance with the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (I&B Code) timelines:
The CoC's urgency to conclude the process by 12th February 2020 was based on the impending expiry of the 180-day CIRP period on 24th February 2020. However, the Tribunal noted that the Resolution Professional sought an extension of the CIRP period by 90 days, which was granted by the Adjudicating Authority on 26th February 2020. This extension indicated that the CoC had not approved the Resolution Plan by 12th February 2020, and thus, the Appellant's exclusion on the grounds of time constraints was unwarranted.

4. Commercial wisdom of the CoC:
The Respondents argued that the approval of the Resolution Plan was based on the CoC's commercial wisdom, which should not be questioned. However, the Tribunal found that the Resolution Professional's failure to present the Appellant's revised plan to the CoC constituted a material irregularity. The Tribunal emphasized that the CoC's commercial wisdom was not being interfered with, but the process conducted by the Resolution Professional was flawed.

5. Extension of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) period:
The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in "Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Limited Vs. Satish Kumar Gupta and Ors." which allows for the extension of the CIRP period beyond the 330-day limit in exceptional cases. The Tribunal held that the Appellant's revised plan, submitted within the 180-day period, should have been considered, and the Resolution Professional's rejection was unjustified. The Tribunal directed the CIRP to resume from the stage of considering the Resolution Plans, including the Appellant's revised plan, and excluded the period of judicial intervention from the extended timelines.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders, finding them legally and factually flawed. The CIRP was directed to resume from the stage of considering the Resolution Plans, including the Appellant's revised plan, and the CoC was instructed to consider all plans within the extended timelines. The period of judicial intervention was excluded from the computation of the extended timelines.

---