NCLAT rejects fresh challenge to resolution plan after CIRP period expiry, citing previous unsuccessful appeal

NCLAT dismissed an appeal challenging a resolution plan approved by the Committee of Creditors (CoC) after the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) period expired. The appellant had previously unsuccessfully challenged the same CoC resolution dated 27.07.2023 through another application, which was rejected by NCLT and affirmed by SC. NCLAT held that the appellant cannot re-challenge the same decision through a subsequent application. The adjudicating authority properly considered the extension period and excluded the pendency period of the resolution professional's application for extension, finding no infirmity in rejecting the fresh challenge.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the CoC's decision to approve the Resolution Plan after the expiry of the CIRP period.
2. Validity of subsequent applications and appeals challenging the CoC's decision.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the CoC's Decision to Approve the Resolution Plan after the Expiry of the CIRP Period:

The primary contention raised by the appellant was that the Committee of Creditors (CoC) approved the Resolution Plan on 27.07.2023, which was beyond the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) period that expired on 30.06.2023. The appellant argued that any decisions taken after the expiration of the CIRP period were illegal and should not have been considered by the Adjudicating Authority.

The CoC had resolved on 29.06.2023 to seek a further extension of 30 days to complete the process, and the Resolution Professional (RP) filed an application (IA No.1529 of 2023) on 30.06.2023 for this extension. The Adjudicating Authority granted this extension on 18.10.2023, excluding the period of pendency of the application. The order dated 18.10.2023 stated, "extension of 30 days beyond 330 days period is granted from the date of this order by excluding the period of pendency of this application before this Authority."

Given this exclusion, the period between 30.06.2023 and 18.10.2023 was not counted, and the extension was effectively granted. Thus, the approval of the Resolution Plan on 27.07.2023 fell within the extended CIRP period. The Tribunal concluded that "the decisions of the CoC fell within the extended period of CIRP and there is no merit in the submission of the Appellant that minutes of the meeting dated 27.07.2023 be declared illegal."

2. Validity of Subsequent Applications and Appeals Challenging the CoC's Decision:

The appellant had previously filed IA No.1748 of 2023 on 29.07.2023, seeking to set aside the CoC's resolution dated 27.07.2023. This application was dismissed by the Adjudicating Authority on 22.12.2023, and the dismissal was upheld by the Tribunal on 23.02.2024 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court subsequently.

Despite these rejections, the appellant filed IA No.1420 of 2024 on 10.06.2024, again seeking to declare the CoC meeting and its decisions as illegal. The Tribunal noted that the appellant was attempting to re-litigate the same issue that had already been decided against them. The Tribunal stated, "The Appellant having unsuccessfully challenged the Resolution Plan dated 27.07.2023 in IA No.1748 of 2023, which decision of NCLT was affirmed up to Hon'ble Supreme Court, it cannot be allowed to again question the same decision by filing IA No.1420 of 2024."

The Adjudicating Authority had considered the order dated 18.10.2023 and concluded that the extension of 30 days was valid, and thus, the CoC's approval of the Resolution Plan was within the extended CIRP period. The Tribunal found no merit in the appellant's arguments and upheld the Adjudicating Authority's decision.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal rejected the appeal, affirming the legality of the CoC's decision to approve the Resolution Plan within the extended CIRP period and dismissing the appellant's repeated challenges to this decision. The Tribunal emphasized that "there is no merit in the Appeal. The Appeal is rejected. Parties shall bear their own costs."

---