TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the Resolution Professional was justified in refusing to place the applicants' resolution plan before the Committee of Creditors on the ground that it did not conform to the Request for Resolution Plan and the requirements of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and the relevant regulations; (ii) Whether the Adjudicating Authority could interfere with or rework the commercial terms and conditions contained in the Request for Resolution Plan approved by the Committee of Creditors.
Issue (i): Whether the Resolution Professional was justified in refusing to place the applicants' resolution plan before the Committee of Creditors on the ground that it did not conform to the Request for Resolution Plan and the requirements of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and the relevant regulations.
Analysis: The plan was found to depart from the approved bid conditions, particularly on ownership participation and joint and several responsibility for implementation. The Resolution Professional had repeatedly sought amendments and clarifications, but the revised submissions still did not cure the stated non-compliances. Under the resolution framework, the Resolution Professional is required to place only plans that satisfy the statutory requirements, including management of the corporate debtor and implementation of the plan, before the Committee of Creditors.
Conclusion: The refusal to place the plan before the Committee of Creditors was justified and is upheld against the applicants.
Issue (ii): Whether the Adjudicating Authority could interfere with or rework the commercial terms and conditions contained in the Request for Resolution Plan approved by the Committee of Creditors.
Analysis: The terms of the Request for Resolution Plan were treated as part of the commercial framework decided by the Committee of Creditors. The Adjudicating Authority held that it could not examine the reasonableness or fairness of those requirements, nor substitute its own view for the commercial assessment made in the insolvency process. The applicants' difficulty in complying with the stated requirements did not justify judicial alteration of the bid conditions.
Conclusion: No interference with the Request for Resolution Plan was warranted, and the challenge to its terms fails.
Final Conclusion: The applicants' relief was declined because the submitted plan was not treated as compliant with the bid conditions and the insolvency process was left to proceed on the basis of the approved resolution framework.
Ratio Decidendi: A resolution plan that does not conform to the approved request for resolution plan and the statutory requirements governing contents and implementation need not be placed before the Committee of Creditors, and the adjudicating forum will not interfere with the commercial terms fixed through the insolvency resolution process.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
