Strict compliance in insolvency resolution covers locus, public-law limits on attachment issues, and mandatory plan requirements.

"Any person aggrieved" under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is stated to cover operational creditors, erstwhile promoters and other affected stakeholders, so appeals are not barred for want of original applicant status. The note also states that insolvency fora cannot assume public-law jurisdiction over attachment issues under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, and directions touching such attachment fall outside the appellate tribunal's remit. It further emphasises strict compliance with the Code and CIRP Regulations: the resolution process must meet the time-limit, eligibility under Section 29A, and mandatory requirements under Sections 30 and 31 and Regulation 38, failing which a resolution plan is invalid.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the appellants were persons aggrieved entitled to maintain appeals under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; (ii) whether the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal could sustain directions touching attachment of corporate debtor assets under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and Section 32A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; (iii) whether the resolution plan and its approval were vitiated for breach of mandatory requirements under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and the CIRP Regulations, 2016, including the time-limit under Section 12 and compliance under Sections 29A, 30 and 31.

Issue (i): whether the appellants were persons aggrieved entitled to maintain appeals under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Analysis: The phrase "any person aggrieved" was held to be broad enough to include operational creditors, erstwhile promoters and other stakeholders affected by the order under challenge. The insolvency process is collective in nature and does not remain confined to the original applicant creditor and the corporate debtor. The appeals therefore were not defeated on the ground of locus merely because the appellants were not the original applicants before the adjudicating authority.

Conclusion: The appeals were maintainable.

Issue (ii): whether the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal could sustain directions touching attachment of corporate debtor assets under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and Section 32A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Analysis: The power to review a decision of a statutory authority in the realm of public law was held to lie outside the jurisdiction of the National Company Law Tribunal and the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal. The attachment order under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 was a matter governed by public law and could not be adjudicated by the appellate tribunal while exercising jurisdiction under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The findings of the appellate tribunal on that issue were therefore beyond jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The impugned directions concerning the attachment issue were without jurisdiction and could not be sustained.

Issue (iii): whether the resolution plan and its approval were vitiated for breach of mandatory requirements under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and the CIRP Regulations, 2016, including the time-limit under Section 12 and compliance under Sections 29A, 30 and 31.

Analysis: The Court found multiple mandatory lapses in the insolvency process. The resolution professional had not secured compliance with the statutory time-limit for completion of the corporate insolvency resolution process, had not properly certified eligibility under Section 29A, and had not ensured the statutory requirements under Section 30(2) and Regulation 38, including priority and feasibility requirements. The adjudicating authority was required to approve only a resolution plan conforming to the Code and regulations, and a plan procured and approved in breach of these mandatory norms could not be treated as valid merely because payments were later made or the plan was subsequently acted upon. The appellate tribunal's approval of the plan and related directions were therefore unsustainable.

Conclusion: The resolution plan was held invalid and the approvals of the adjudicating authority and appellate tribunal were set aside.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded in substance, the approved resolution plan was rejected, and liquidation was directed against the corporate debtor, with consequential reliefs to be worked out in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: A resolution plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 can be approved only upon strict compliance with the statutory time-limit, eligibility requirements and mandatory contents prescribed by the Code and Regulations, and insolvency fora cannot assume jurisdiction over matters of public law beyond the statutory appellate framework.

---