Limited judicial interference with creditor approval of a resolution plan where the insolvency process remained transparent and equitable.

Interference with a committee of creditors' approval of a resolution plan is confined to the limited grounds under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, including material irregularity in the resolution professional's exercise of powers. The process here involved public notice, invitation of expression of interest, receipt and evaluation of multiple plans, and opportunities for applicants to improve their bids. The applicant seeking further time had already been given chances to cure deficiencies, and the committee was operating within the outer timeline for the corporate insolvency resolution process. No material irregularity was shown, so the appellate tribunal's interference was unwarranted and the successful resolution applicant's plan was restored.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellate tribunal was justified in interfering with the committee of creditors' decision approving the resolution plan on the ground of alleged procedural irregularity in not granting further time to a resolution applicant to submit a revised bid.

Analysis: The resolution process was conducted within the framework of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, with public notice, invitation of expression of interest, receipt of multiple resolution plans, evaluation by the resolution professional, and deliberation by the committee of creditors. The record showed that all prospective resolution applicants were afforded opportunity to improve their bids, that the respondent seeking further time had already been given opportunities to rectify deficiencies, and that the committee of creditors was operating under the outer timeline for completion of the corporate insolvency resolution process. Interference with the committee of creditors' commercial decision is permissible only on the limited grounds available under the Code, including material irregularity in the exercise of powers by the resolution professional. On the facts found, the procedure adopted was transparent and equitable, and no material irregularity was established.

Conclusion: The challenge to the approval of the resolution plan failed, and the interference by the appellate tribunal was unwarranted. The approval of the successful resolution applicant's plan was restored.

---