Tribunal upholds approval of resolution plan, emphasizing creditors' commercial wisdom.

The Tribunal upheld the Adjudicating Authority's approval of the resolution plan submitted by Respondent No.3, dismissing the appeals challenging the decision. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of the Committee of Creditors' commercial wisdom in approving the plan, stating that procedural irregularities did not significantly impact the resolution process. The Adjudicating Authority's decision was deemed valid under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, as the resolution plan met the necessary requirements.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Procedural irregularities in the conduct of CIRP by the Resolution Professional.
2. Approval of the resolution plan by the Adjudicating Authority.

Summary:

Issue 1: Procedural Irregularities in the Conduct of CIRP by the Resolution Professional:
The Appellant argued that there were serious procedural irregularities in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) conducted by the Resolution Professional. Specifically, the resolution plan of Respondent No.3 was not submitted in pursuance to Form G, which is a mandatory requirement under Section 25(2)(h) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) and Regulation 36A(1) of the CIRP Regulations. The Appellant contended that this procedural deviation amounted to a private sale, which is only permissible in liquidation, thereby vitiating the entire resolution process. The Appellant also claimed that they were denied a fair opportunity to present a plan and that the Resolution Professional did not share the resolution plan submitted by Respondent No.3, thus not acting in consonance with the IBC procedures.

Issue 2: Approval of the Resolution Plan by the Adjudicating Authority:
The Adjudicating Authority approved the resolution plan submitted by Respondent No.3, finding it compliant with the provisions of IBC and the CIRP Regulations. The Appellant challenged this approval, arguing that the Adjudicating Authority failed to take notice of the procedural irregularities and that the resolution plan was akin to a private sale. The Respondents defended the approval, stating that the resolution plan was considered in the interest of the Corporate Debtor's revival and that the procedural deviation of non-publication of Form G was not material. They emphasized that the commercial wisdom of the Committee of Creditors (CoC) is sacrosanct and should not be interfered with.

Tribunal's Findings:
The Tribunal noted that despite multiple opportunities, the Appellant and other Potential Resolution Applicants (PRAs) failed to submit satisfactory resolution plans. The CoC, exercising its commercial wisdom, decided to consider the resolution plan of Respondent No.3 to avoid liquidation. The Tribunal found that the procedural deviation of non-publication of Form G did not materially affect the integrity of the resolution process. The Tribunal emphasized that the commercial wisdom of the CoC, which approved the resolution plan by 100% voting share, is paramount and should not be interfered with. The Adjudicating Authority acted within its jurisdiction under Section 31 of IBC by approving the resolution plan, which met the requirements of Section 30(2).

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, upholding the Adjudicating Authority's orders approving the resolution plan. The Tribunal found no merit in the Appellant's claims of procedural irregularities and affirmed the primacy of the CoC's commercial wisdom in the resolution process.

---