Tribunal Upholds CoC's Approval of Resolution Plan, Stresses Timely Compliance

The Tribunal dismissed both appeals, upholding the Adjudicating Authority's decision to dismiss the application due to the Resolution Plan's prior approval by the Committee of Creditors. The Tribunal found that the Expression of Interest was properly published, conditions imposed on the Appellant were justified, and emphasized the importance of adhering to timelines under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. The CoC's decision to extend the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process and approve a Resolution Plan was upheld, with the Tribunal underscoring limited judicial review in such commercial decisions.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the dismissal of the application by the Adjudicating Authority.
2. Consideration of the Expression of Interest (EoI) by the Resolution Professional.
3. Conditions imposed by the Adjudicating Authority on the Appellant.
4. Adherence to the timelines and process by the Committee of Creditors (CoC).

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the dismissal of the application by the Adjudicating Authority:
The Appellant challenged the Orders of the Adjudicating Authority in I.A. 2763 of 2021 and I.A. 2714 of 2021. The Adjudicating Authority dismissed the application on the grounds that it was filed after the approval of the Resolution Plan by the CoC. The Tribunal noted that the application was dismissed because the Resolution Plan was already approved, making the application redundant.

2. Consideration of the Expression of Interest (EoI) by the Resolution Professional:
The Appellant argued that the EoI was not widely published as required under Regulation 36A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016. However, the Tribunal found that the EoI was published in multiple widely-read newspapers, including 'Economic Times,' 'Business Standard,' and 'Punjab Jagran,' fulfilling the publication requirements. The Tribunal noted that nine EoIs were received by the last submission date, and the CoC extended the last date for submission of Resolution Plans due to the lockdown, indicating that the process was followed correctly.

3. Conditions imposed by the Adjudicating Authority on the Appellant:
The Appellant contended that the Adjudicating Authority should not have imposed conditions while allowing them to file their claim before the CoC. The Tribunal observed that the conditions imposed, including the payment of Rs. 10 Crores within seven working days and Rs. 50 Crores before 23.09.2021, were to ensure the seriousness and bonafides of the Appellant. The Tribunal found these conditions justified given the Appellant's late submission and the substantial financial commitment involved.

4. Adherence to the timelines and process by the Committee of Creditors (CoC):
The Tribunal emphasized the importance of adhering to the timelines and process stipulated under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. The CoC, with 98.03% votes, extended the CIRP by 90 days and approved the Resolution Plan of Mr. Sarabjit Singh with 100% voting share. The Tribunal highlighted that the Appellant's EoI was submitted well past the deadline, and the CoC, in its commercial wisdom, decided not to entertain any new offers beyond the established timelines. The Tribunal referenced the Supreme Court's decisions in 'Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Limited' and 'Ghanshyam Mishra & Sons Pvt. Ltd.' to underscore the limited scope of judicial review in such business decisions by the CoC.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed both appeals, affirming that the process and timelines were adhered to correctly. The dismissal was based on the fact that the Appellant's EoI was submitted late, and the conditions imposed by the Adjudicating Authority were reasonable to ensure the Appellant's commitment. The Tribunal reiterated that any relief granted contrary to the established timelines would be ultra vires to the scope and objective of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.

---