Commercial wisdom governs CoC abstention from voting, and liquidation follows when no resolution plan is approved before CIRP expiry.

A committee of creditors may abstain from voting on a resolution plan, and such abstention falls within its commercial wisdom; it cannot be treated as an improper non-decision or a ground for judicial interference by an unsuccessful resolution applicant. If no resolution plan is approved before expiry of the extended CIRP period, the resolution professional must seek liquidation under the Code. Where the sole creditor consents to the liquidation application and nominates the liquidator, the filing and grant of liquidation are legally valid.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the Committee of Creditors' abstention from voting on the resolution plans could be treated as an improper non-decision or rejection warranting interference; (ii) whether the liquidation application could validly be moved and allowed after expiry of the CIRP period.

Issue (i): whether the Committee of Creditors' abstention from voting on the resolution plans could be treated as an improper non-decision or rejection warranting interference.

Analysis: The resolution process permits voting in favour, against, or abstention. Where the sole financial creditor consciously abstained from voting, the matter fell within its commercial domain. The absence of a positive or negative vote did not create a right in the unsuccessful resolution applicant to compel acceptance of its plan or to question the reasons behind the creditor's decision. The creditor's commercial wisdom remained paramount and was not open to judicial reappreciation.

Conclusion: The abstention from voting could not be interfered with, and the challenge to the CoC's decision failed.

Issue (ii): whether the liquidation application could validly be moved and allowed after expiry of the CIRP period.

Analysis: Once the extended CIRP period expired without approval of any resolution plan, the resolution professional was required to move for liquidation under the governing liquidation trigger. The record also showed consent from the sole CoC member for filing the liquidation application and nominating the liquidator. In these circumstances, the filing and allowance of the liquidation application suffered from no legal infirmity.

Conclusion: The liquidation order was valid and did not warrant interference.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order directing liquidation was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where no resolution plan is approved before expiry of the CIRP period, liquidation follows under the Code, and the CoC's decision to abstain from voting on a resolution plan lies within its commercial wisdom and is not open to judicial interference.

---