Tribunal Upholds Adjudicating Authority's Decision, Dismisses Appeal under IBC Section 60(5)

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the Adjudicating Authority's decision. The Appellant was found not entitled to relief under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) and lacked standing to challenge the approved Resolution Plan as a dissenting secured creditor. The Tribunal emphasized the supremacy of the Committee of Creditors' commercial wisdom, ruling that the alleged discrimination did not warrant interference with the approved plan. The decision was in line with established precedents and principles, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement of the Appellant to claim relief under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC).
2. Competence of the Appellant, as a dissenting secured creditor, to challenge the approved Resolution Plan.
3. Impact of alleged discrimination on the commercial wisdom of the Committee of Creditors (CoC).

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Entitlement to Claim Relief under Section 60(5) of IBC
The Appellant, a secured financial creditor, contended that the Resolution Plan approved by the CoC and Adjudicating Authority was discriminatory and did not comply with the provisions of IBC. The Appellant argued that the plan did not prioritize their higher value security interest. However, it was noted that the Appellant did not challenge the approved Resolution Plan before the Appellate Authority under Section 61 of IBC. Instead, the Appellant filed an application under Section 60(5) to challenge the plan, which was seen as circumventing the law. The Tribunal emphasized that once a Resolution Plan is approved by the CoC and Adjudicating Authority, it cannot be modified or withdrawn, as established in the "Ebix Singapore Private Limited vs. Committee of Creditors of Educomp Solutions Limited and Anr." case. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed on this ground.

Issue 2: Competence to Challenge as a Dissenting Secured Creditor
The Appellant, being a dissenting creditor, raised objections during the CoC meetings and through letters, arguing that the Resolution Plan was discriminatory. However, the Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's rulings in "Indian Resurgence ARC Private Limited v. M/s Amit Metaliks Limited & Anr." and "Jaypee Kensington Boulevard Apartments Welfare Association and Others v. NBCC (India) Limited and others," which clarified that dissenting secured creditors cannot challenge an approved Resolution Plan based on their dissatisfaction with the security interest. The Tribunal held that the Appellant, as a dissenting secured creditor, was not competent to challenge the approved Resolution Plan, and the appeal was dismissed on this ground as well.

Issue 3: Impact of Alleged Discrimination on Commercial Wisdom of CoC
The Appellant argued that the Resolution Plan did not give priority to their higher value security interest and was discriminatory. However, the Tribunal noted that the Resolution Professional had examined the plan in compliance with Section 30(2) of IBC and placed it before the CoC, which approved it with a majority of 81.39%. The Tribunal emphasized that the commercial wisdom of the CoC is supreme and not subject to judicial review, as established in "Committee Of Creditors Of Essar Steel India Limited vs Satish Kumar Gupta" and other cases. The Tribunal concluded that the approved Resolution Plan, which was not under challenge, complied with legal requirements and could not be interfered with. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed on this ground as well.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, confirming the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority. The Tribunal held that the Appellant was not entitled to claim relief under Section 60(5) of IBC, was not competent to challenge the approved Resolution Plan as a dissenting secured creditor, and that the alleged discrimination did not override the commercial wisdom of the CoC.

---