Resolution plan flexibility allowed for funding changes and exclusion of regulatory delay to preserve implementation.

An approved resolution plan may be revised to change the funding mechanism and related shareholding pattern where the plan itself permits flexibility in the mode and source of funds, and the substantive treatment of creditors remains unchanged. The Tribunal treated the proposed adjustment as administrative, not a material alteration, because stakeholder payments and rights were preserved and no objection was raised. It also excluded the period of delay caused by the RBI's refusal to permit equity infusion, finding that the setback arose from an external regulatory impediment rather than any default by the resolution applicant. The revised implementation timeline was therefore accepted to support a feasible resolution and protect the corporate debtor as a going concern.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the approved resolution plan could be revised to permit a change in the funding and shareholding structure without altering the substantive treatment of stakeholders; (ii) Whether the period of delay caused by the RBI's rejection of the request for equity infusion could be excluded from the implementation timeline of the approved resolution plan.

Issue (i): Whether the approved resolution plan could be revised to permit a change in the funding and shareholding structure without altering the substantive treatment of stakeholders.

Analysis: The approved resolution plan itself permitted the resolution applicant to alter the mode and manner of sourcing funds and the instruments through which funding was to be raised, including in the SPV or the corporate debtor, subject to intimation to the monitoring committee. The proposed revision was confined to the infusion mechanics and the allied shareholding pattern, while preserving the payments and treatment due to creditors. No stakeholder raised objection, and the change was treated as administrative rather than a substantive alteration of the plan. The plan was therefore capable of being implemented through the revised funding structure without prejudice to the rights of stakeholders.

Conclusion: The revision to the resolution plan regarding the funding mechanism and consequential shareholding pattern was permitted.

Issue (ii): Whether the period of delay caused by the RBI's rejection of the request for equity infusion could be excluded from the implementation timeline of the approved resolution plan.

Analysis: The delay in implementation was attributable to the external regulatory impediment created by the RBI's refusal, not to any default on the part of the resolution applicant. The Tribunal also relied on the special time-line relaxation framework and its own residual powers to ensure that a feasible resolution was not frustrated by circumstances beyond the applicant's control. In the facts, exclusion of the intervening period was found necessary to facilitate implementation within the revised structure and to preserve the corporate debtor as a going concern.

Conclusion: The intervening period from the RBI rejection until the date of the order was excluded from the implementation timeline.

Final Conclusion: The application was allowed, with permission to implement the approved resolution plan through the revised funding structure and with exclusion of the relevant delay period, while preserving the rights of stakeholders and the substantive terms of the plan.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an approved resolution plan expressly permits a change in the mode and source of funding and the proposed revision does not alter the substantive treatment of creditors or prejudice stakeholders, the Tribunal may allow the revision and, to secure implementation of a feasible resolution, exclude delay caused by an external regulatory impediment.

---