Approved resolution plans bind stakeholders; pre-resolution claims not covered by the plan stand extinguished under insolvency law.

Valuation of the corporate debtor was treated as a factual exercise, and the adoption of the average of the two closest estimates found no procedural infirmity, so interference was unwarranted. An approved resolution plan was applied under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; pre-resolution statutory dues and lease-related claims not provided for in the plan stood extinguished, and post-approval recovery proceedings could not continue. The commercial wisdom of the Committee of Creditors remained non-justiciable beyond the narrow statutory limits. Inconsistent obligations under NSEZ requirements and related transfer charges could not override the approved plan, which was left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the valuation of the corporate debtor and the manner in which the fair value and liquidation value were determined warranted interference; (ii) Whether the resolution plan could be interfered with on the ground that the operational creditor's admitted statutory dues and lease-related claims were not paid in full; (iii) Whether the claimed exemptions from NSEZ obligations and transfer-related charges could be denied in view of the resolution plan and the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Issue (i): Whether the valuation of the corporate debtor and the manner in which the fair value and liquidation value were determined warranted interference;

Analysis: Valuation was treated as a factual exercise based on relevant material. The average of the two closest estimates given by the valuers was adopted. The record disclosed no procedural infirmity, and the process did not justify appellate interference.

Conclusion: The valuation exercise was upheld and no interference was called for.

Issue (ii): Whether the resolution plan could be interfered with on the ground that the operational creditor's admitted statutory dues and lease-related claims were not paid in full;

Analysis: The approved plan had to be tested on the settled principles governing sections 30 and 31 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The dues not provided for in the resolution plan stood extinguished, and post-approval proceedings for such pre-resolution claims could not survive. The commercial wisdom of the Committee of Creditors was held to be non-justiciable except within the narrow statutory limits.

Conclusion: The challenge to the resolution plan on the basis of unpaid admitted dues failed.

Issue (iii): Whether the claimed exemptions from NSEZ obligations and transfer-related charges could be denied in view of the resolution plan and the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Analysis: The resolution plan had to prevail by virtue of the overriding effect of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. Any inconsistent obligation under the Special Economic Zone Act, 2005 or related charges could not override the approved plan once implemented.

Conclusion: The objections based on NSEZ exemptions and transfer-related charges were rejected.

Final Conclusion: The approved resolution plan and the orders affirming it were left undisturbed, and the appellant's objections to valuation, distribution, and statutory dues did not succeed.

Ratio Decidendi: An approved resolution plan binds all stakeholders, pre-resolution claims not provided for in the plan stand extinguished, and courts will not interfere with the commercial wisdom of the Committee of Creditors except within the limited confines of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

---