Tribunal Upholds Resolution Plan Approval, Denies Bank Guarantee Extension Request

The Tribunal upheld the approval of the Resolution Plan, dismissing the appeal against rejection of objection and approval of the plan. The Appellant's request for an extension to furnish a Bank Guarantee was denied, leading to an adjournment for legal advice by the Committee of Creditors. The Tribunal excluded time from the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process due to CoC considerations and directed completion within the specified timeframe. The Appellant's argument of the approved plan having less value was rejected, emphasizing adherence to CIRP timelines and CoC authority in approving plans.

---

---

Issues:
- Appeal against rejection of objection and approval of Resolution Plan
- Request for extension of time to furnish Bank Guarantee
- Exclusion of time and issuance of Form-G
- Approval of Resolution Plan with less value
- Grounds for interference with the impugned order

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against the rejection of the objection and the approval of the Resolution Plan by the Adjudicating Authority. The Appellant, a Successful Resolution Applicant, requested an extension of 10 days to furnish the Bank Guarantee, which was not accepted. The Committee of Creditors (CoC) meeting noted the inability of the Appellant to deposit the required amount, leading to an adjournment for legal advice. The CoC later decided to conduct e-voting for fresh publication of Form-G.

2. The Adjudicating Authority excluded 58 days from the total period of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) due to plans under consideration by the CoC. Although the specific permission for the issuance of Form-G was not mentioned in the order, the Resolution Professional was directed to complete the CIRP process within the given time frame. The Appellant's submission of being ready to deposit the amount post-approval of another plan was not considered valid.

3. The Appellant's argument that the approved Resolution Plan had less value than their proposed amount was rejected as insufficient grounds for interference. Additionally, the Resolution Applicant whose plan was approved ranked higher in the previous process compared to the Appellant. Consequently, the Tribunal found no valid grounds to interfere with the impugned order and dismissed the appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the approval of the Resolution Plan, emphasizing that the Appellant's inability to deposit the amount during the relevant period did not warrant interference post-approval. The decision highlighted the importance of adhering to the CIRP timeline and the CoC's authority in approving Resolution Plans.

---