Recall of insolvency admission by shareholders/third parties held impermissible; 89.25% CoC-approved resolution plan sanctioned under s31

Whether shareholders/third parties may seek recall of Adjudicating Authority's admission order: Held that a party who has availed statutory appeals and exhausted remedies cannot reopen the same order; a person who did not appeal lacks locus to recall an order that attained finality. Outcome: recall applications dismissed as impermissible and an abuse delaying time-bound CIRP. Whether the Resolution Plan complies with IBC and IBBI Regulations: Held that the plan, having 89.25% CoC approval, meets viability/feasibility requirements and complies with sections 30 and 31 and regs 38-39; RBI and CCI approvals obtained. Outcome: Resolution Plan approved and binding under section 31. Scope of reliefs/waivers and effect on claims: Held Adjudicating Authority may grant only Code/Companies Act reliefs; other statutory waivers lie with competent authorities; non-plan claims extinguish on approval and moratorium ends. Outcome: specified waivers limited; non-plan claims extinguished; moratorium ceases.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the shareholder-applicants have locus to maintain applications seeking recall/rectification of admission orders and to challenge the initiation of CIRP; (ii) Whether the admission orders dated 08.10.2021 (and pleas based on Section 10A of IBC and related jurisdictional objections) can be recalled/rectified by the Adjudicating Authority in these IAs after appellate remedies; (iii) Whether objections to the Resolution Plan (including alleged deviation from the Evaluation Matrix, grant of clarifications/relaxations, classification and discounting of instruments and viability/feasibility) are maintainable and whether the Resolution Plan complies with statutory requirements under Section 30/31 and applicable Regulations.

Issue (i): Whether shareholders (the applicants) have locus to file the instant IAs challenging admission of CIRP and seeking recall/rectification of admission orders.

Analysis: The Tribunal examined authorities and statutory framework distinguishing rights of shareholders/investors from the corporate debtor and the role of authorised representatives and classes of creditors under the Code and CIRP Regulations. The record shows prior appeals by the same parties and participation (or delegated representation) in CoC processes. NCLAT and Supreme Court jurisprudence and principles concerning who is an 'aggrieved person' and the role of authorised representatives were considered.

Conclusion: The applicants (shareholders/debenture holders) lack maintainable locus to bring these recall/rectification IAs against the admission orders; the IAs are not maintainable and are disallowed.

Issue (ii): Whether the Adjudicating Authority can recall/rectify the admission order dated 08.10.2021 on grounds including bar under Section 10A and alleged procedural infirmities after appellate proceedings and/or in the present applications.

Analysis: The Tribunal analysed the factual matrix, the history of appeals to NCLAT and Supreme Court (which were dismissed), the availability of statutory appellate remedy under Section 61, and authorities on recall/review/rectification powers of the Tribunal. The Tribunal applied precedent limiting recall/reopening when the ground was available earlier or when appeal remedies were not availed or were exhausted; it also considered jurisprudence on jurisdictional nullities and the consequences of final appellate orders.

Conclusion: The Tribunal held that the applicants cannot reopen matters already raised/decided in appeals and have not established grounds (fresh fraud/procedural infirmity within narrow limits) warranting recall; accordingly the recall/rectification pleas (including Section 10A challenge insofar as already adjudicated on appeal) are rejected and the IAs are disallowed.

Issue (iii): Whether the objections to the Resolution Plan (alleging deviation from the Evaluation Matrix, improper discounting/valuation of instruments, unfair clarifications/relaxations, lack of transparency, and non-compliance with Section 30/Regulations) are maintainable and whether the Resolution Plan may be rejected.

Analysis: The Tribunal reviewed the RFRP, the Evaluation Matrix, the Challenge Process note, chronology of bid submissions, addenda and clarifications, CoC deliberations, expert/advisor inputs, voting results (89.25% in favour) and statutory requirements under Section 30(2), Regulation 36/36B/39. The Tribunal considered the non-justiciability principle of CoC's commercial wisdom established by higher courts, the confined scope of NCLT under Section 31 to test statutory compliance (feasibility, viability and legal contravention), and whether any material breach of the evaluation procedure or illegality that would invalidate the plan was shown.

Conclusion: The Tribunal found no material contravention warranting rejection; the Evaluation Matrix and Challenge Process were applied in the exercise of the CoC's commercial wisdom, clarifications/considerations were part of the documented process, and the plan met statutory requirements. The objections to the Resolution Plan are rejected.

Final Conclusion: The interlocutory applications seeking recall/rectification of admission orders are disallowed as not maintainable; objections to the Resolution Plan are rejected; the Resolution Plan dated 18 January 2023 with addendum dated 24 January 2023 submitted by National Asset Reconstruction Company Limited (with implementation by the Resolution Applicant and partners) is approved under Section 31 of the IBC subject to the observations in the order and applicable statutory limits. The moratorium ceases on approval and the Administrator is discharged save for implementation duties in the Plan.

Ratio Decidendi: The Adjudicating Authority will not reopen or recall admission orders where statutory appeal remedies were available and/or exhausted and no narrow exceptional grounds (freshly proven fraud or procedural nullity) exist; challenges to a duly approved resolution plan are permissible only to test statutory compliance (Section 30/31 and applicable Regulations), while the commercial wisdom of the Committee of Creditors in evaluating and selecting a resolution plan is non-justiciable and binding when the plan satisfies statutory requirements.

---