Tribunal Upholds Approval of Resolution Plan under Insolvency Code

The Tribunal upheld the Adjudicating Authority's decision to approve the Resolution Plan, finding it compliant with the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. The plan addressed the interests of stakeholders, including operational creditors, and was unanimously approved by the Committee of Creditors. The Tribunal emphasized limited judicial review over the CoC's commercial decisions, citing precedents supporting the CoC's discretion. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the Resolution Plan's approval.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Compliance with Section 30(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC).
2. Valuation of the Corporate Debtor's assets.
3. Eligibility of a Charitable Trust as a Resolution Applicant.
4. Adequacy of the Resolution Plan in addressing the interests of all stakeholders, including operational creditors.
5. Judicial review of the Committee of Creditors' (CoC) commercial wisdom.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Compliance with Section 30(2) of the IBC:
The Adjudicating Authority observed that the Resolution Plan meets the requirements of Section 30(2) of the IBC. The plan provides for the priority payment of CIRP costs, operational creditors, and ensures the management and supervision of the Corporate Debtor (CD) post-approval. The plan was approved by the CoC with a 100% voting share and declared not to contravene any provisions of the law.

2. Valuation of the Corporate Debtor's Assets:
The Appellant contended that the Resolution Professional (RP) did not consider the exact value of the land and properties of the Corporate Debtor. However, the Respondents argued that the valuation was conducted by two independent registered valuers, and the average fair value and liquidation value were determined as INR 162.23 Crores and INR 122.90 Crores, respectively. The Tribunal noted that the values arrived at by the registered valuers are estimates and cannot be construed as the accurate value of the Corporate Debtor.

3. Eligibility of a Charitable Trust as a Resolution Applicant:
The Appellant argued that a Charitable Public Trust cannot be a Resolution Applicant. However, the Tribunal referred to the definition of "person" under Section 3(23)(d) of the IBC, which includes a "trust." Therefore, there is no legal impediment for a trust to be a Resolution Applicant. The Tribunal cited the Supreme Court's decision in Sole Trustee Loka Shikshana Trust v. Commissioner of Income Tax, which supports the eligibility of a charitable trust to submit a resolution plan.

4. Adequacy of the Resolution Plan in Addressing Stakeholders' Interests:
The Appellant claimed that the Resolution Plan did not adequately address the interests of operational creditors. The Tribunal noted that the plan provided for the payment of operational creditors in priority over financial creditors and included a provision for an additional payment of INR 1 Crore to unsecured financial and operational creditors. The Tribunal emphasized that the commercial wisdom of the CoC, which approved the plan unanimously, must be respected.

5. Judicial Review of the CoC's Commercial Wisdom:
The Tribunal reiterated that the scope of judicial review of the CoC's commercial decisions is limited. The Adjudicating Authority and the Appellate Tribunal can only ensure that the resolution plan complies with the requirements of Section 30(2) of the IBC. The Tribunal cited several Supreme Court judgments, including K. Sashidhar v. Indian Overseas Bank and Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Limited v. Satish Kumar Gupta, which affirm that the commercial wisdom of the CoC is paramount and not subject to judicial interference.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the Appellant failed to make a case for setting aside the impugned order. The Resolution Plan was found to be compliant with the IBC and approved by the CoC with 100% voting share. The appeal was dismissed, and the Tribunal upheld the Adjudicating Authority's decision to approve the Resolution Plan.

---