Limited review of resolution plans under insolvency law approved compliance, while tax and statutory waivers were refused.

A committee-approved resolution plan was found compliant with the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code and CIRP Regulations because the adjudicating authority's review was limited to statutory compliance, including eligibility under Section 29A, the requirements of Section 30(2), prescribed contents, stakeholder treatment and filing formalities. The authority reiterated that it cannot interfere with the commercial wisdom of the committee of creditors, and the plan was approved. Concessions and waivers relating to income-tax, capital gains and other statutory liabilities were refused, as such reliefs must be sought before the competent authorities and approval of the plan does not itself waive statutory obligations.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the resolution plan satisfied the requirements for approval under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and the CIRP Regulations, 2016, including the eligibility of the resolution applicant and compliance with the prescribed contents and safeguards; (ii) Whether the adjudicating authority could grant the concessions and waivers sought in relation to tax and other statutory liabilities.

Issue (i): Whether the resolution plan satisfied the requirements for approval under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and the CIRP Regulations, 2016, including the eligibility of the resolution applicant and compliance with the prescribed contents and safeguards.

Analysis: The plan was placed before the adjudicating authority after approval by the committee of creditors with 100% voting share. The plan was examined against the requirements of Section 30(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the eligibility bar under Section 29A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and the applicable regulations governing contents, treatment of stakeholders, and filing of Form H. The authority also noted the settled principle that its review is confined to compliance with the statutory requirements and cannot trespass into the commercial decision of the committee of creditors.

Conclusion: The plan was held to be compliant and was approved.

Issue (ii): Whether the adjudicating authority could grant the concessions and waivers sought in relation to tax and other statutory liabilities.

Analysis: The reliefs sought included concessions touching income-tax and capital gains, as well as directions affecting statutory authorities. The authority declined to grant such waivers or concessions and held that any such relief must be pursued before the competent authorities in accordance with law. The approval of the resolution plan was also stated not to operate as a waiver of statutory obligations or liabilities.

Conclusion: The requested concessions and waivers were refused.

Final Conclusion: The resolution plan was approved and made binding on the relevant stakeholders, while statutory liabilities and any external reliefs were left to be dealt with by the competent authorities under law.

Ratio Decidendi: The adjudicating authority's scrutiny of a committee-approved resolution plan is limited to statutory compliance under Section 30(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and it cannot alter the commercial terms approved by the committee of creditors.

---