Commercial wisdom of creditors prevails; approval of a conforming resolution plan may not be stayed absent an interim order.

Where a resolution plan was approved by the Committee of Creditors and conformed to the prior asset determination and the information memorandum, judicial interference is limited and approval must stand; conditioning approval on compliance with the asset determination was permissible and did not breach statutory requirements. A request to keep implementation in abeyance pending separate civil appeals was refused absent an existing interim order from the higher forum and without sufficient basis to disturb the commercial decision; consequence: implementation proceeds in accordance with the approved plan.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Adjudicating Authority rightly approved the Resolution Plan submitted by the Successful Resolution Applicant and whether implementation of the approved Resolution Plan should be kept in abeyance pending Civil Appeals before the Hon'ble Supreme Court concerning the status of certain assets.

Analysis: The Resolution Plan was submitted by the Appellant based on the Information Memorandum which disclosed the status of all 12 tea gardens. The Committee of Creditors approved the Plan with the requisite voting share and the Adjudicating Authority approved the Plan in terms of the Tribunal's earlier judgment determining which tea gardens constituted assets of the corporate debtor. The scope for interference with approval of a resolution plan is limited by the statutory scheme which accords primacy to the commercial wisdom of the Committee of Creditors and restricts judicial review of that commercial decision. The Adjudicating Authority expressly conditioned approval on compliance with the Tribunal's findings regarding assets and did not contravene Section 30(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Appellant's request for a stay of implementation pending disposal of separate Civil Appeals did not establish sufficient basis to withhold implementation because no interim order in favour of the Appellant was shown to exist from the Supreme Court and the approval was in conformity with the Tribunal's determination on assets.

Conclusion: Appeal dismissed; the Adjudicating Authority's approval of the Resolution Plan is upheld (not in favour of the Appellant).

---