Resolution plan rejection upheld after appellant failed proper procedural compliance despite attending meetings

The NCLAT Chennai dismissed an appeal challenging the rejection of an intervention application regarding a resolution plan. The appellant claimed a vested right to submit a resolution plan without filing pursuant to Form G, despite attending CoC meetings where plan details were discussed. The tribunal held no vested right exists without proper procedural compliance. Citing Maharashtra Seamless Limited v. Padmanabhan Venkatesh, the court rejected arguments that bid value must match liquidation value. Since the resolution plan was already implemented, the tribunal found no illegality in the adjudicating authority's dismissal order.

---

---

Issues involved:
The judgment involves issues related to intervention in the resolution process, approval of resolution plans, rights of operational creditors, compliance with insolvency regulations, and the authority of the Adjudicating Authority.

Intervention Application Dismissal:
The Appellant challenged the dismissal of the Intervention Application seeking to intervene in the resolution process. The Appellant argued that the Resolution Plan undervalued assets, violated regulations, and excluded them from crucial meetings, thus breaching the Code. The Appellant contended that their claim was admitted belatedly, affecting their rights as a representative nominee of operational creditors.

Challenging Resolution Plan:
Another issue involved the Appellant's challenge to the Resolution Plan approved by the CoC. The Appellant sought to submit a better Plan after the CoC's approval, claiming the approved Plan did not adequately cover operational creditors' claims. The Adjudicating Authority dismissed the Appellant's challenge on grounds of lack of locus standi and untimeliness.

Vested Rights and Timelines:
The judgment addressed whether the Appellant had a vested right to submit a Resolution Plan after the CoC's approval. It was noted that the Appellant's delayed intervention and failure to participate in key meetings impacted their ability to challenge the approved Plan. Legal precedents highlighted the importance of timely submissions and the binding nature of approved Plans.

Final Decision:
The Tribunal upheld the Adjudicating Authority's dismissal of the Intervention Application and the challenge to the Resolution Plan. It emphasized the commercial wisdom of the CoC in approving the Plan and the lack of grounds to interfere with the approved Plan. The Appellant's contentions regarding asset maximization and Plan valuation were deemed insufficient to overturn the decisions. The Company Appeals were dismissed without costs, and all related Interlocutory Applications were closed.

---