Resolution plan approval protected by commercial wisdom rule; access to shared utilities upheld as implementation aid, not title adjudication.

Approval of a resolution plan can be interfered with only on the narrow statutory grounds recognised under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, and not by substituting appellate views for the commercial wisdom of the Committee of Creditors. A direction preserving access to shared utilities and installations outside the leasehold area was treated as facilitative of implementation of the hotel resolution plan, not as a final determination of title or possession, and was upheld. No statutory violation in the plan approval process was established, so the approval was sustained. The parties' substantive rights over the shared utilities were left open to be worked out independently before the appropriate forum.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the approval of the resolution plan could be interfered with on the ground that the reliefs and concessions relating to access to shared utilities and installations outside the leasehold area were impermissible; (ii) whether the impugned order approving the resolution plan was liable to be set aside for alleged violation of the statutory limits governing approval of a resolution plan.

Issue (i): whether the approval of the resolution plan could be interfered with on the ground that the reliefs and concessions relating to access to shared utilities and installations outside the leasehold area were impermissible.

Analysis: The resolution plan specifically treated the shared utilities and installations as essential for running the hotel as a going concern and clarified that access to them was not a condition precedent to implementation. The relief granted by the adjudicating authority preserved continued use of the shared facilities while leaving the parties free to work out their inter se rights before the competent forum. The access direction was therefore viewed as facilitative of implementation and not as a final adjudication of title or possession over the underlying land or assets.

Conclusion: The challenge on this ground was rejected and the grant of access to shared utilities and installations was upheld.

Issue (ii): whether the impugned order approving the resolution plan was liable to be set aside for alleged violation of the statutory limits governing approval of a resolution plan.

Analysis: Approval of a resolution plan approved by the Committee of Creditors with 100% vote share can be interfered with only on the narrow grounds recognised by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, and the adjudicatory forums are not to sit in appeal over the commercial wisdom of the Committee of Creditors. No violation of the statutory requirements for plan approval was established, and the appellate challenge did not disclose a ground warranting interference.

Conclusion: The approval of the resolution plan was sustained.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on merits, while clarifying that the parties' substantive rights regarding shared utilities outside the leasehold land remain open to be worked out independently before the appropriate forum.

Ratio Decidendi: Interference with approval of a resolution plan is confined to the statutory grounds under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, and the commercial wisdom of the Committee of Creditors is not subject to appellate substitution unless a statutory violation is shown.

---