Resolution plan approval under Section 30(2) IBC upheld despite appellant's challenge over exclusion from creditor meetings

NCLAT Principal Bench upheld the approval of a resolution plan under Section 30(2) of IBC. The appellant challenged the plan arguing they were not invited to participate in Committee of Creditors meetings after personal insolvency proceedings commenced. The tribunal held that financial creditors retain rights to proceed against personal guarantors for balance liability as per the approved resolution plan. The appellant failed to establish that suspended management was not invited to participate in CoC meetings or that the resolution plan was non-compliant with Section 30(2). The tribunal emphasized limited jurisdiction to interfere with CoC's commercial wisdom and dismissed the appeal, confirming that resolution plan approval does not discharge personal guarantor liabilities.

---

---

ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1. Whether a Resolution Plan that directs the plan amount to be deposited in a separate interest-bearing account and provides for distribution to stakeholders only after adjudication of pending claims by the Adjudicating Authority is a conditional plan or otherwise impermissible.

2. Whether approval of a Resolution Plan which preserves financial creditors' recourse against personal/corporate guarantors (while extinguishing any subrogation rights against the corporate debtor on the Payment Date) ipso facto discharges or extinguishes liability of personal guarantors.

3. Whether a suspended director/promoter and personal guarantor (whose personal insolvency process commenced subsequently) has standing or entitlement to challenge the commercial wisdom of the Committee of Creditors (CoC) in approving the Resolution Plan, including alleged non-invitation to CoC meetings.

4. The scope of interference by the Adjudicating Authority and the Tribunal with the commercial wisdom of the CoC and the standard under Section 30(2) for judicial intervention in approval of Resolution Plans.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1 - Validity of directing deposit of plan amount and deferred distribution pending adjudication of claims

Legal framework: The Adjudicating Authority may approve a Resolution Plan and, as part of proceedings, make directions to protect stakeholders' interests pending final adjudication of claims; CoC's commercial decisions are accorded deference unless non-compliant with statutory requirements (notably Section 30(2)).

Precedent Treatment: The Court relied on the procedural course adopted by the Adjudicating Authority (consent of CoC and SRA) and prior orders recorded, rather than citing additional authorities to vary that course.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Adjudicating Authority, with consent of parties, directed deposit of the entire plan amount in an interest-bearing account so that pending applications (including claims by dissenting financial creditors, operational creditors, employees, vendors, and the Indian Bank) could be separately adjudicated and paid from that fund as ordered. This course was described as protecting interests of all stakeholders and enabling the SRA to run the corporate debtor if the plan were approved.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - A plan provision (or ancillary order) that deposits plan consideration in a segregated interest-bearing account pending adjudication of claims is permissible where agreed by parties and intended to protect stakeholders; such procedural safeguards do not render the plan conditional in an impermissible sense.

Conclusion: The deposit direction and deferred distribution mechanism were within the Adjudicating Authority's powers, consistent with parties' consent, and do not invalidate approval of the Resolution Plan.

Issue 2 - Effect of Plan clause preserving creditors' recourse against guarantors and extinguishing subrogation rights

Legal framework: Approval of a Resolution Plan does not automatically discharge a personal guarantor of liabilities under an independent contract of guarantee; contractual and statutory rights of financial creditors against guarantors may survive plan approval.

Precedent Treatment: The Court expressly followed and applied the Supreme Court principle that approval of a resolution plan does not ipso facto discharge a personal guarantor (citing the principle in Lalit Kumar Jain). That authority was treated as binding on the point.

Interpretation and reasoning: Clause 4.6.5 of the Resolution Plan expressly preserves financial creditors' entitlement to pursue recourse against personal/corporate guarantors/third-party security. The clause simultaneously deems any subrogation rights of such guarantors against the corporate debtor extinguished on the Payment Date. The Court held that the clause binds all stakeholders, was approved by the CoC, and therefore the appellant (a promoter and personal guarantor) could not challenge it to claim discharge.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Approval of a Resolution Plan that preserves creditors' recourse against guarantors is consistent with settled law that plan approval does not ipso facto discharge guarantors; such a clause is binding when approved by the CoC.

Conclusion: The Resolution Plan's preservation of creditor recourse against guarantors is valid; personal guarantor liability is not extinguished merely by plan approval, and the appellant cannot complain of impairment of guarantor rights under the approved clause.

Issue 3 - Standing and participation of the suspended director/promoter (personal guarantor) and alleged non-invitation to CoC meetings after commencement of personal insolvency

Legal framework: Challenge to the commercial wisdom of the CoC is limited; the statutory regime vests decision-making in the CoC and judicial interference is permissible only on established grounds (e.g., non-compliance with Section 30(2) or breach of mandatory requirements).

Precedent Treatment: The Court applied general principles limiting interference with CoC commercial decisions; no new precedent was distinguished or overruled.

Interpretation and reasoning: The appellant alleged commencement of personal insolvency and lack of invitation to participate in CoC meetings after that date. The Court observed that the appellant did not plead non-representation in any specific CoC meeting held after the personal insolvency commencement and, in any event, the suspended director/promoter lacks a right to challenge the CoC's commercial wisdom. The Court also noted lack of any pleading that the Resolution Plan failed to comply with Section 30(2).

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - A suspended director/promoter/personal guarantor cannot, merely by virtue of status, impeach the CoC's commercial decision absent demonstration of non-compliance with statutory requirements; non-invitation without pleading prejudice to a specific meeting is insufficient to vitiate the process.

Conclusion: The appellant's contention regarding non-invitation and standing fails; no infirmity shown in CoC proceedings or compliance with statutory requirements that would warrant interference.

Issue 4 - Scope of judicial interference with CoC's commercial wisdom and compliance with Section 30(2)

Legal framework: Judicial review of CoC commercial decisions is constrained; the Adjudicating Authority and Tribunal may interfere only where a Plan is inconsistent with Section 30(2) or otherwise breaches mandatory requirements or public policy.

Precedent Treatment: The Court reiterated the limited jurisdiction principle and applied it to the facts, finding no non-compliance with Section 30(2) alleged or made out.

Interpretation and reasoning: The appellant did not contest compliance with Section 30(2); the Court found the Plan was neither conditional in an impermissible sense nor suffering from error. The procedural safeguard of depositing monies and adjudicating claims separately was treated as protective, not objectionable. Given absence of statutory non-compliance, the Court declined to interfere with the CoC's commercial judgment.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Interference with CoC's commercial wisdom requires demonstration that the Plan is not in compliance with Section 30(2) or some other compelling legal defect; mere disagreement with commercial terms or adverse impact on guarantors does not suffice.

Conclusion: The Tribunal's scope to set aside Plan approval was not engaged; no grounds for interference existed and the appeal was dismissed.

---