NCLAT dismisses appeal challenging resolution plan approval after appellant's email submission excluded from consideration

The NCLAT dismissed an appeal challenging the approval of a resolution plan. The appellant argued their email dated 05.06.2023 was not considered while another party's documents were accepted, and challenged the issuance of a second EOI. The NCLAT held that records showed the decision excluded the appellant's submission, finding no substance in the claim. Regarding the second EOI challenge, the court noted the appellant participated in the fresh process after the CoC invited new EOI due to plan values being below liquidation value, and the appellant failed to challenge the second EOI issuance when it occurred. The appeal was dismissed with no errors found in the impugned order.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to order rejecting IA, Consideration of documents in CoC meeting, Submission of resolution plan, Fresh EOI process, Challenge to 2nd EOI issuance.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the rejection of IA No.5390 of 2023 by the Appellant, seeking various reliefs related to the decision of the Committee of Creditors (CoC) in its 19th meeting. The Appellant, a Resolution Applicant, contested the approval of another Resolution Applicant's plan by the CoC. The Appellant's counsel argued that the CoC did not consider an email submitted on 05.06.2023 regarding the Appellant's plan, while granting time to the successful Resolution Applicant to provide details of the source of funds. The Appellant also raised concerns about the re-run of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) based on fresh Expressions of Interest (EOIs) after an initial round. The CoC decided to re-run the process due to low plan value compared to liquidation value. The Appellant challenged the decision on these grounds.

During the hearing, the Respondent's counsel contended that the CoC explicitly decided not to consider any documents received on 05.06.2023, as mentioned in the meeting minutes. The Respondent also highlighted that the Appellant did not submit a plan in response to the first EOI but participated in the second EOI process. Additionally, a Resolution Professional filed an application for plan approval, which was under consideration. The Respondent argued that the Appellant cannot challenge the process after participating in the second EOI. The CoC's decision to invite fresh EOIs was based on the plan value being significantly lower than the liquidation value.

Upon reviewing the submissions and the meeting minutes, the Tribunal found no merit in the Appellant's contentions. The Tribunal noted that the CoC explicitly decided to exclude submissions made after the final deadline to ensure fairness and adherence to the Request for Resolution Plan (RFRP) requirements. Regarding the challenge to the second EOI issuance, the Tribunal held that the Appellant's participation in the process precluded them from challenging it later. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the impugned order.

---