Commercial wisdom in insolvency plans cannot be displaced by subjective valuation concerns or unsupported non-compliance findings.

Judicial review of an approved resolution plan is confined to statutory grounds of non-compliance under the insolvency framework. The adjudicating authority cannot reject a plan merely because it considers the plan value lower than fair value or liquidation value, and missing documents should ordinarily be called for rather than used to reject the plan outright. The authority also cannot substitute its own view for the commercial wisdom of the committee of creditors on bid pricing, bidder selection, or realisation. The impugned order was set aside, and the application for approval of the resolution plan was revived for fresh consideration with permission to file the relevant documents.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the rejection of the resolution plan could be sustained on the grounds recorded by the adjudicating authority, including alleged non-compliance with statutory requirements and missing documents; (ii) whether the adjudicating authority could interfere with the commercial wisdom of the committee of creditors on the basis of the material noticed in the impugned order.

Issue (i): whether the rejection of the resolution plan could be sustained on the grounds recorded by the adjudicating authority, including alleged non-compliance with statutory requirements and missing documents.

Analysis: The scope of interference with an approved resolution plan is confined to the limits prescribed under the insolvency framework. A plan cannot be rejected merely because the adjudicating authority considers the plan value lower than the fair value or liquidation value, as that comparison does not by itself establish non-compliance with the statutory requirements governing approval of a resolution plan. Where certain documents or minutes were not available on the record, the proper course was to call for them rather than reject the plan outright. The reasons recorded for alleged non-compliance under the relevant statutory provisions were found to be unsupported by material, and the observations on statutory dues and admission of claims did not furnish a valid basis for rejection on the facts noted.

Conclusion: The rejection of the resolution plan on the stated grounds was not justified.

Issue (ii): whether the adjudicating authority could interfere with the commercial wisdom of the committee of creditors on the basis of the material noticed in the impugned order.

Analysis: The commercial decision of the committee of creditors lies within its domain, and the adjudicating authority's scrutiny is restricted to statutory compliance. The order under challenge proceeded on observations that effectively questioned the commercial assessment of the committee of creditors, including the pricing of the bid, the choice of bidder, and the adequacy of realization. Such matters were outside the permissible scope of review absent a demonstrated breach of the statutory parameters governing approval. Since the impugned order did not contain a reasoned finding establishing non-compliance within those limits, interference was warranted.

Conclusion: The adjudicating authority could not reject the plan by substituting its own view for the commercial wisdom of the committee of creditors.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the application seeking approval of the resolution plan was revived for fresh consideration after permitting filing of the relevant documents.

Ratio Decidendi: Judicial review of an approved resolution plan is confined to the statutory grounds of non-compliance, and neither the adjudicating authority nor the appellate tribunal may substitute its own assessment for the commercial wisdom of the committee of creditors.

---