Resolution plan approval upheld despite timeline extension challenge under Regulation 36B provisions

NCLAT Principal Bench dismissed appellant's challenge to resolution plan approval. Committee of Creditors extended timeline for Expression of Interest and resolution plan submissions in February 2023, which was contemplated in original invitation's Clause 6. Appellant objected to timeline extension and inclusion of successful bidder in prospective resolution applicants list. NCLAT held that timeline extension under existing EoI provisions didn't require fresh Form G publication, distinguishing between modification and extension under Regulation 36B. Appellant participated in process after extension without objection, submitting revised resolution plan. Successful bidder's plan was approved with 96.05% voting share. Court found no material irregularity warranting CIRP process invalidation, dismissing appeal for lack of merit.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered in this judgment include:

- Whether the extension of the timeline for submission of the Expression of Interest (EoI) and Resolution Plan without issuing a fresh Form G was valid under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) and its regulations.

- Whether the inclusion of Pinax Paper Mills Private Limited in the list of Prospective Resolution Applicants (PRAs) after the timeline extension was permissible.

- Whether the process followed by the Resolution Professional and the Committee of Creditors (CoC) in approving the Resolution Plan was in compliance with the relevant legal framework.

- Whether there was any material irregularity in the conduct of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) that would warrant interference with the approval of the Resolution Plan.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Extension of Timeline and Requirement of Fresh Form G

- Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Regulation 36A (4A) of the CIRP Regulations mandates that any modification in the invitation for EoI must be made in the manner of the initial invitation. The Appellant argued that extending the timeline without a fresh Form G violated this regulation.

- Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal interpreted that the extension of the timeline, as contemplated in the original EoI, did not constitute a modification that required a fresh Form G. The Tribunal distinguished between "modification" and "extension," noting that the latter was expressly allowed under Clause 6 of the original EoI.

- Key Evidence and Findings: The original EoI allowed for the extension of the last date with CoC approval, and the extension was communicated to all PRAs, including the Appellant, who participated without objection.

- Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal found that the extension was in accordance with the original EoI and the CoC's decision, thus not requiring a fresh Form G.

- Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Appellant's reliance on Regulation 36A (4A) was countered by the Tribunal's interpretation that the regulation did not apply to mere extensions of timeline.

- Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the extension of the timeline without a fresh Form G was valid and did not constitute a material irregularity.

Inclusion of Pinax Paper Mills in the List of PRAs

- Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Regulation 39(1B) of the CIRP Regulations prohibits considering a resolution plan from an applicant not in the final list of PRAs.

- Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal noted that after the timeline extension, a new list of PRAs was published, including Pinax Paper Mills, and no objections were raised by any party, including the Appellant.

- Key Evidence and Findings: The final list of PRAs published on 28.02.2023 included Pinax Paper Mills, and the Appellant did not object to this list.

- Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal found that the inclusion of Pinax Paper Mills was proper and in compliance with the regulations, as it was part of the final list of PRAs.

- Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Appellant's argument that Pinax was not in the initial list was countered by the fact that the final list, after the extension, included Pinax, and no objections were raised.

- Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that there was no breach of Regulation 39(1B) as Pinax was included in the final list of PRAs.

Compliance with CIRP Regulations and Material Irregularity

- Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 61(3)(ii) of the IBC allows for appeal on grounds of material irregularity in the exercise of powers by the Resolution Professional.

- Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal found that all actions of the Resolution Professional were with the CoC's approval and in line with the EoI's provisions.

- Key Evidence and Findings: The Appellant participated in the process after the timeline extension and submitted a compliant resolution plan.

- Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal held that there was no material irregularity in the process as the Appellant was aware of and participated in the extended process.

- Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Appellant's claims of irregularity were dismissed as they participated in the process and benefited from the timeline extension.

- Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that there was no material irregularity warranting interference with the approved Resolution Plan.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

- The Tribunal upheld the CoC's decision to extend the timeline for EoI and Resolution Plan submission without issuing a fresh Form G, as it was in line with the original EoI and approved by the CoC.

- The inclusion of Pinax Paper Mills in the final list of PRAs was proper, and no objections were raised by the Appellant, who participated in the process.

- The Tribunal emphasized the importance of the CoC's commercial wisdom and found no material irregularity in the Resolution Professional's actions.

- The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, affirming the Adjudicating Authority's order approving the Resolution Plan.

---