TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Resolution plans under Section 31(1) IBC cannot be withdrawn or modified due to inadequate data or information asymmetry claims</h1> <h3>Deccan Value Investors L.P. & Anr. Versus Dinkar Venkatasubramanian & Anr.</h3> Deccan Value Investors L.P. & Anr. Versus Dinkar Venkatasubramanian & Anr. - TMI Issues involved:The judgment addresses cross-appeals under Section 62 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 regarding the approval of a resolution plan by the Committee of Creditors.Summary:The Supreme Court reviewed the impugned judgment by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) upholding the decision of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) regarding the withdrawal or modification of a resolution plan. Referring to the case of 'Ebix Singapore Private Limited v. Committee of Creditors of Educomp Solutions Limited,' the Court emphasized that a resolution applicant cannot alter the plan post-approval by the Committee of Creditors. The Court highlighted that the resolution plan, once approved, becomes binding on all stakeholders under the Code. The resolution plan's approval by the adjudicating authority restricts any unilateral amendments or withdrawals by the resolution applicant.Regarding the specific grounds for withdrawal presented by the successful resolution applicants, the Court found that the reasons provided did not amount to fraud on the part of the resolution professional. The Court examined various aspects, including the information memorandum and data provided to prospective resolution applicants before plan submission. The Court also considered the manufacturing output and financial data available in the virtual data room to evaluate the resolution plan's viability.The Court scrutinized the Mott Macdonald Report and other critical aspects highlighted by the resolution applicants. It was noted that the resolution plans are prepared by financial experts after thorough analysis, and any deficiencies in data should be carefully considered by the applicants before plan submission. The Court emphasized that resolution plans are not to be judged based on absolute accuracy but on the overall commercial viability and risk assessment conducted by financial experts.Ultimately, the Court set aside the NCLAT's judgment and upheld the resolution plan submitted by the successful resolution applicants. The parties were directed to appear before the NCLT for further proceedings to expedite the resolution process. The appeals were allowed in favor of the successful resolution applicants, and any pending applications were disposed of accordingly.
TaxTMI 