Approved acquisition plan can permit substitution of the auction purchaser to pursue pending avoidance proceedings.

An approved acquisition plan may expressly provide for the successful auction purchaser to pursue pending avoidance proceedings originally filed by the resolution professional, and substitution is permissible where that framework has attained finality. The objection that only the resolution professional or liquidator can prosecute such proceedings was rejected because the avoidance application forms part of the liquidation estate and the concluded plan governed the continuation of the claim. A brief consequential order allowing substitution was also not invalid merely for want of elaborate reasons where the basis of the decision was ascertainable from the record. No interference was warranted, and the appeal failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a successful auction purchaser, pursuant to an approved acquisition plan, can be substituted in place of the resolution professional to pursue the pending avoidance application; (ii) Whether the impugned order allowing substitution was liable to be set aside for want of detailed reasons.

Issue (i): Whether a successful auction purchaser, pursuant to an approved acquisition plan, can be substituted in place of the resolution professional to pursue the pending avoidance application.

Analysis: The pending avoidance application had been instituted by the resolution professional under the avoidance provisions of the Code, and the proceeds of such proceedings form part of the liquidation estate. The approved acquisition plan had already attained finality and specifically contemplated that the successful auction purchaser would pursue the avoidance proceedings. The objection that only the resolution professional or liquidator could prosecute such proceedings was rejected in light of the statutory scheme, the liquidation framework, and the earlier approved plan. The challenge was also weakened by the appellant's lack of legal basis to reopen matters already concluded in earlier proceedings.

Conclusion: The successful auction purchaser was entitled to be substituted and to pursue the avoidance application. The objection was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the impugned order allowing substitution was liable to be set aside for want of detailed reasons.

Analysis: Although the impugned order was brief, it was passed on a consequential application and expressly referred to the averments made therein. The earlier approved acquisition plan and the surrounding proceedings supplied the context for the decision. The absence of a lengthy standalone discussion did not, in the facts of the case, warrant interference.

Conclusion: The order was not vitiated for want of reasons.

Final Conclusion: No ground was made out to interfere with the substitution order, and the appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an approved acquisition plan expressly contemplates pursuit of pending avoidance proceedings, and the relevant avoidance application was originally filed by the resolution professional, substitution of the successful auction purchaser to prosecute those proceedings is permissible; a brief consequential order will not be interfered with merely because it lacks elaborate reasons when the basis of the decision is ascertainable from the record.

---