Tribunal Upholds Creditors' Decision on Resolution Plan, Dismisses Appeals

The Tribunal dismissed all appeals, upholding the approval of the resolution plan by the Committee of Creditors (CoC) and the Adjudicating Authority. It found no material irregularity in rejecting the resolution plan of one party and approving another's plan, stating that the CoC's commercial wisdom in choosing the plan was not justiciable. Additionally, claims rejected by two entities were deemed belated and correctly dismissed by the Resolution Professional (RP) in compliance with regulations. The Tribunal concluded that the resolution plan adequately addressed government dues and complied with applicable laws.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether any material irregularity was committed by the RP and the CoC in rejecting the resolution plan of CRP or by the Adjudicating Authority in approving the resolution plan of SRA-Vama.
2. Whether the rejection of claims by the RP of UTGST and AC-CGST affects the legality of the resolution plan approved by the Adjudicating Authority.

Summary:

Issue 1: Material Irregularity in Rejection of CRP's Plan and Approval of Vama's Plan
The Appellant-CRP contended that the RP acted arbitrarily by not accepting their resolution plan despite the Adjudicating Authority's directions to consider it. CRP alleged that the RP endorsed Vama's resolution plan, which was below the liquidation value and did not meet the requirements under applicable law. The CoC and RP countered that CRP's plan was rightly rejected due to non-compliance with mandatory requirements and belated submission. The Adjudicating Authority found no contravention of law in Vama's plan, noting that the plan value being less than the liquidation value is permissible as per Supreme Court precedent. The Tribunal held that the CoC's commercial wisdom in approving Vama's plan is non-justiciable and found no material irregularity or contravention of law by the RP or CoC.

Issue 2: Rejection of Claims by UTGST and AC-CGST
UTGST and AC-CGST argued that their claims were wrongly rejected by the RP due to delay in filing, emphasizing that the RP does not have adjudicatory powers to accept or reject claims. They contended that the resolution plan does not meet the requirements under applicable law as it ignores statutory dues. The RP and CoC maintained that claims filed after the extended period cannot be accepted as per CIRP Regulations. The Tribunal noted that both UTGST and AC-CGST filed their claims after the extended 90-day period and found no dereliction of duty by the RP in rejecting these belated claims. The Tribunal also observed that the resolution plan provided for appropriate treatment of admitted government dues and upheld the Adjudicating Authority's approval of the resolution plan.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed all four appeals, finding no illegality in the Adjudicating Authority's orders, and upheld the resolution plan approved by the CoC and the Adjudicating Authority.

---