Limitation challenge to CIRP initiation and resolution plan approval could not be reopened on appeal after prior judicial scrutiny.
A fresh limitation objection to initiation of CIRP could not be entertained where it had not been raised before the Adjudicating Authority and the section 7 admission had already been challenged before the Supreme Court, which dismissed that challenge on delay and on merits. The resolution plan approval was also found free from legal infirmity because the Committee of Creditors exercised its commercial wisdom, the plan was held compliant with the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, and similarly situated secured creditors were treated equitably. The direction for release of title deeds was only consequential to the approved plan, so no independent illegality arose.
Issues: (i) whether the challenge to initiation of the corporate insolvency resolution process on the ground of limitation could be entertained in these appeals; (ii) whether the approval of the resolution plan and the consequential direction for release of title deeds suffered from any legal infirmity.
Issue (i): whether the challenge to initiation of the corporate insolvency resolution process on the ground of limitation could be entertained in these appeals.
Analysis: The objection on limitation was not the subject of the earlier objections before the Adjudicating Authority, and the order admitting the section 7 application had already been carried to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court dismissed that challenge on delay as well as on merits, so the initiation of the insolvency process could not be reopened in appeal as a jurisdictional defect or as a fresh collateral attack.
Conclusion: The limitation challenge was rejected and could not be entertained.
Issue (ii): whether the approval of the resolution plan and the consequential direction for release of title deeds suffered from any legal infirmity.
Analysis: The objections to the resolution plan had already been rejected and were not separately assailed. The plan had been approved by the Committee of Creditors in the exercise of its commercial wisdom, and the Adjudicating Authority had found the plan compliant with the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code and had treated similarly situated secured creditors equitably. The direction concerning title deeds was only consequential to the approved resolution plan.
Conclusion: No illegality was found in the approval of the resolution plan or in the consequential direction for release of the title deeds.
Final Conclusion: The appellate tribunal found no ground to interfere with either impugned order, and the reliefs sought by the appellant were declined.
Ratio Decidendi: A resolution plan approved by the Committee of Creditors within its commercial wisdom, and an insolvency process already upheld on challenge, cannot be reopened in appeal on a fresh limitation objection or on a collateral attack against consequential directions.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
