CIRP valuation and resolution applicant eligibility cannot be reopened once CoC approval and statutory compliance are shown.

Valuation conducted by duly appointed registered valuers under the CIRP framework, and accepted by the Committee of Creditors, could not be reopened on the basis of a contrary market view or alleged pre-CIRP irregularities; the challenge to undervaluation therefore failed. Eligibility of a resolution applicant under Section 29A(f) had to be assessed as on the date of submission of the resolution plan, and stayed or set-aside restraints did not establish ineligibility on the facts recorded; that challenge also failed. Once the plan received CoC approval, scrutiny remained confined to compliance with Section 30(2), and the approved resolution plan was upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the challenge to the resolution plan on the ground of alleged undervaluation and irregularities in the valuation exercise under the CIRP regulations was sustainable; and (ii) whether the successful resolution applicant was ineligible under Section 29A(f) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and whether the approved resolution plan could be interfered with despite approval by the Committee of Creditors.

Issue (i): whether the challenge to the resolution plan on the ground of alleged undervaluation and irregularities in the valuation exercise under the CIRP regulations was sustainable.

Analysis: The valuation was carried out after admission into CIRP by registered valuers appointed under the applicable regulations, and the fair value and liquidation value were computed in the manner prescribed under the CIRP framework. Past pre-CIRP valuations and the appellant's own perception of market value were held to be irrelevant for testing the CIRP valuation process. Once the valuation report was placed before the Committee of Creditors and the Committee was satisfied with it, the adjudicatory fora could not re-appreciate the valuation exercise or substitute their own view for the commercial assessment of the Committee of Creditors.

Conclusion: The allegation of undervaluation and procedural irregularity failed and was rejected.

Issue (ii): whether the successful resolution applicant was ineligible under Section 29A(f) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and whether the approved resolution plan could be interfered with despite approval by the Committee of Creditors.

Analysis: The disqualification of a resolution applicant had to be tested with reference to the date of submission of the resolution plan. The material on record showed that the alleged SEBI restraints had been set aside or stayed, and an independent due diligence exercise confirmed eligibility. The resolution plan had been approved by the Committee of Creditors with 100% voting share, and the adjudicatory authority's scrutiny was limited to compliance with Section 30(2) of the Code, without entering into the merits of the commercial decision taken by the Committee of Creditors.

Conclusion: The challenge to the successful resolution applicant's eligibility and to the approval of the resolution plan failed.

Final Conclusion: The approved resolution plan was upheld, no legal infirmity was found in the insolvency resolution process, and the appeal was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: In CIRP matters, valuation conducted by duly appointed registered valuers and accepted by the Committee of Creditors cannot be re-opened on a creditor's or former management's contrary view of value, and an approved resolution plan can be interfered with only for non-compliance with the statutory requirements governing resolution plans and resolution applicant eligibility.

---