Tribunal Upholds Resolution Plan Compliance with CIRP Regulations and IBC 2016

The Tribunal dismissed the application challenging the Resolution Plan's compliance with CIRP regulations and IBC 2016. It found that the Resolution Professional followed the required provisions, and the CoC approved the plan lawfully. The Tribunal also upheld the validity of the valuation report and rejected claims of discrimination between employee and consultant doctors. It concluded that the Resolution Professional adhered to procedural and regulatory requirements, emphasizing the CoC's decision-making authority. The applicant was advised to seek redress through an appeal if dissatisfied.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Compliance of the Resolution Plan with CIRP regulations and IBC 2016.
2. Validity of the Valuation Report.
3. Discrimination between employee doctors and consultant doctors.
4. Adherence to the procedural and regulatory requirements by the Resolution Professional.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Compliance of the Resolution Plan with CIRP Regulations and IBC 2016:
The applicant sought the rejection of the Resolution Plan on the grounds that it did not comply with Regulation 35(a), 35(b), and 35(c) of CIRP regulations and Section 30(2)(f) of IBC 2016. The applicant argued that the plan infringed upon fundamental rights under the Constitution of India. The Tribunal, however, found that the Resolution Professional had adhered to the provisions of the IBBI Regulations and that the CoC had approved the Resolution Plan after thorough consideration. The Tribunal emphasized that under Section 31(1) of the IBC, it must be satisfied that the requirements of Section 30(2) have been complied with, and it found no breach in the provisions.

2. Validity of the Valuation Report:
The applicant contended that the valuation report by Shri R.K. Patel was negligently prepared and sought the appointment of another valuer. The Tribunal noted that the valuation was conducted by two independent Registered Valuers, and the fair value and liquidation value were computed in accordance with internationally accepted standards. The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court judgment in Maharashtra Seamless Limited vs. Padmanabhan Venkatesh & Ors., which stated that the valuation process assists the CoC in decision-making and is not a statutory mandate that the bid must match the liquidation value. The Tribunal found no significant difference in the values provided by the valuers and dismissed the need for a new valuation.

3. Discrimination between Employee Doctors and Consultant Doctors:
The applicant argued that the Resolution Plan discriminated between employee doctors and consultant doctors, violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The Tribunal noted that the applicant was not a full-time employee and was classified as an operational creditor based on the nature of the claim forms submitted. The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court judgment in Swiss Ribbons Private Limited, which held that classification between various classes of creditors is neither discriminatory nor arbitrary. The Tribunal found no merit in the claim of discrimination.

4. Adherence to Procedural and Regulatory Requirements by the Resolution Professional:
The applicant claimed that the Resolution Professional did not follow proper procedures and regulations. The Tribunal found that the Resolution Professional had complied with the provisions of Regulation 27 and 35 of the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016. The Tribunal emphasized that the Resolution Plan was approved by the CoC with 100% voting rights and that the Adjudicating Authority’s role is limited to ensuring compliance with Section 30(2) of the IBC. The Tribunal reiterated that it cannot interfere with the commercial wisdom of the CoC.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding no convincing reason to interfere with the Resolution Plan approved by the CoC. The Tribunal highlighted that the applicant could seek redressal through an appeal under Section 61(3) if aggrieved by the Resolution Plan. The application was dismissed with no order as to costs.

---