Binding resolution plan enforcement upheld where delayed implementation and pending regulatory approvals did not excuse compliance.

An approved resolution plan remains binding, and a direction to implement it within a fixed time is treated as enforcement of the existing obligation rather than an impermissible modification of the plan. The successful resolution applicant's delay in performance did not justify resisting implementation where the plan had already been approved and the additional time only accommodated overdue compliance. Pending regulatory approvals did not excuse non-implementation, because the resolution framework required the applicant to obtain all necessary approvals within the statutory period under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The challenge was rejected, and the order directing implementation of the resolution plan was upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a direction requiring implementation of an approved resolution plan within a fixed time amounted to impermissible modification of the plan or exceeded jurisdiction; (ii) Whether non-obtaining of regulatory approval within the prescribed period excused the successful resolution applicant from implementing the plan.

Issue (i): Whether a direction requiring implementation of an approved resolution plan within a fixed time amounted to impermissible modification of the plan or exceeded jurisdiction.

Analysis: The approved resolution plan remained binding, and the direction did not rewrite its terms. The direction only granted additional time for implementation after the applicant had already delayed performance well beyond the period contemplated in the resolution framework. A time-bound direction to implement an already approved plan was treated as enforcement of the existing obligation, not alteration of the commercial terms.

Conclusion: The challenge on the ground of impermissible modification failed, and the direction was upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether non-obtaining of regulatory approval within the prescribed period excused the successful resolution applicant from implementing the plan.

Analysis: The resolution framework required the successful resolution applicant to secure all necessary statutory and regulatory approvals, and Section 31(4) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 required such approvals to be obtained within one year from approval of the resolution plan, or within the period provided by the relevant law, whichever was later. The record showed that the required approvals had not been obtained even after the statutory period had elapsed. The applicant could not rely on pending approvals to justify indefinite non-implementation of the plan.

Conclusion: The plea of inability due to pending regulatory approval was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The appeal disclosed no ground for interference with the order directing implementation of the resolution plan, and the dismissal left the liquidation application to be considered expeditiously by the adjudicating authority.

Ratio Decidendi: A successful resolution applicant must obtain all required approvals and implement an approved resolution plan within the statutory and contractual timeline, and a time-bound enforcement direction does not amount to modification of the plan.

---