NCLAT overturns rejection of liquidation application, upholds Committee of Creditors' commercial wisdom over judicial interference

NCLAT allowed appeal against adjudicating authority's rejection of liquidation application recommended by Committee of Creditors. The lower court improperly overrode CoC's commercial wisdom by preferring a resolution plan valued 20 times higher than liquidation value, citing prudence doctrine. NCLAT held that adjudicating authorities have limited scope for judicial interference except ensuring compliance with insolvency code requirements. Following SC precedents, the tribunal ruled that CoC's commercial wisdom must be honored unless code violations exist. The impugned order was deemed perverse and illegal for unfounded reasoning that disregarded established legal principles limiting judicial intervention in commercial decisions of creditors.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Rejection of liquidation application by the Adjudicating Authority.
2. Commercial wisdom of the Committee of Creditors (CoC).
3. Jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Authority in overriding CoC's decision.
4. Viability and acceptance of the Resolution Plan.
5. Allegations of mala fide actions by the sole Financial Creditor.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Rejection of Liquidation Application by the Adjudicating Authority:
The appeal was filed against the order of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Guwahati Bench, which rejected the application for liquidation of the Corporate Debtor. The application was filed by the Resolution Professional based on the CoC's decision to liquidate the Corporate Debtor after rejecting the Resolution Plan submitted by the Promoters. The Adjudicating Authority directed the Resolution Professional to negotiate further with the Promoters to find a viable Resolution Plan, emphasizing the importance of resolution over liquidation, especially for an MSME unit.

2. Commercial Wisdom of the Committee of Creditors (CoC):
The CoC, with 100% voting rights held by the Appellant, exercised its commercial wisdom to reject the Resolution Plan submitted by the Promoters of the Corporate Debtor, citing issues such as the non-viability of the plan and the insistence on releasing personal and corporate guarantees. The CoC's decision to liquidate was based on the belief that the proposed Resolution Plan did not meet the necessary requirements and would result in significant financial losses for the Appellant.

3. Jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Authority in Overriding CoC's Decision:
The Adjudicating Authority's decision to reject the liquidation application and direct further negotiations was challenged on the grounds that it exceeded its jurisdiction by overriding the CoC's commercial decision. The Appellant argued that the Adjudicating Authority is obligated under section 33(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code to accept the CoC's recommendation for liquidation. The judgment emphasized that the Adjudicating Authority does not have the jurisdiction to evaluate the commercial decision of the CoC.

4. Viability and Acceptance of the Resolution Plan:
The Resolution Plan submitted by the Promoters offered an amount significantly higher than the liquidation value but was rejected by the CoC due to concerns over its viability and the conditions attached, such as the release of guarantees. The Adjudicating Authority, however, was persuaded by the higher value offered in the Resolution Plan and viewed liquidation as a last resort for an MSME unit. The Appellant argued that the plan was not viable and did not provide a clear methodology for the revival of the Corporate Debtor.

5. Allegations of Mala Fide Actions by the Sole Financial Creditor:
The Respondents, who were the Promoters and suspended directors of the Corporate Debtor, alleged that the Appellant acted in a mala fide manner by rejecting the Resolution Plan and initiating liquidation proceedings. They argued that the Appellant's actions were against the spirit of the Code and that the Adjudicating Authority's decision was justified in protecting the interests of all stakeholders and the MSME unit.

Conclusion:
The Appellate Tribunal set aside the Impugned Order, emphasizing the paramount supremacy of the CoC's commercial wisdom. It held that the Adjudicating Authority had no jurisdiction to interfere with the CoC's decision unless there was a violation of the Code or related regulations, which was not the case here. The Tribunal directed the parties to appear before the NCLT, Guwahati Bench, for further proceedings.

---