No post-approval withdrawal right from a resolution plan exists where later financial incapacity cannot override binding commitments.

The insolvency framework does not recognise any post-submission or post-approval right for a successful resolution applicant to withdraw from an approved resolution plan. Later financial incapacity or subsequent developments do not create a legal entitlement to resile from binding commitments, because allowing withdrawal or renegotiation would undermine statutory timelines and the effectiveness of the resolution process. The approval order remains binding, and courts cannot create a withdrawal right in the absence of express legislative provision. The request to withdraw was therefore rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether a successful resolution applicant can withdraw an approved resolution plan on the ground of financial incapacity or subsequent developments.

Analysis: The governing insolvency framework does not contemplate a post-submission or post-approval right of withdrawal by a successful resolution applicant. The decision relied on the settled position that permitting withdrawal or renegotiation after approval would undermine the mandatory timelines and the efficacy of the resolution process. Financial difficulty, even if arising from later developments, does not create a legal entitlement to resile from commitments contained in the resolution plan. The statutory scheme and the binding effect of the approval order preserve the sanctity of the resolution process and do not permit judicial creation of a withdrawal right in the absence of legislative provision.

Conclusion: The request to withdraw from the resolution plan was rightly rejected and the issue was answered against the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of an express statutory provision, a successful resolution applicant has no right to withdraw from an approved resolution plan, and subsequent financial incapacity does not justify judicially sanctioned rescission.

---