Request to modify an approved insolvency resolution plan denied; NCD holders bound by accepted settlement and undertakings

NCLAT affirmed the Tribunal's order dismissing the applicants' plea to modify the approved resolution plan. The appellate bench held the corporate debtor's CIRP was valid, the 188 NCD holders were properly represented through the trustee and fund manager, and the holders had received settlement payments approved by the HC. Having accepted settlement monies and given undertakings, they could not also claim amounts under the resolution plan. The HC rejected modification and the SC dismissed the SLP. The appeal was without merit and dismissed.

---

---

ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1. Whether investors who accepted a court-supervised settlement and furnished irrevocable undertakings relinquishing their claims are entitled to receive additional amounts under an already approved resolution plan in the CIRP.

2. Whether the authorised representative (trustee) lawfully represented the debenture/NCD holders in the Committee of Creditors (CoC) and whether any defect in such representation vitiates the resolution plan or entitles individual investors to relief.

3. Whether orders of a High Court in criminal/quashing proceedings and the mechanism of disbursement under that order operate to preclude investors from claiming payments under the approved resolution plan and whether the Adjudicating Authority erred in refusing relief to investors who had earlier received settlement amounts.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1 - Effect of court-supervised settlement and irrevocable undertakings on entitlement under an approved resolution plan

Legal framework: The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code regime binds creditors and resolution plans once approved by the Adjudicating Authority; concurrently, orders of a High Court and undertakings executed before an Administrator in pursuance of such orders are binding on parties to those orders.

Precedent treatment: No earlier judicial precedent was invoked by the parties in the judgment; the Tribunal relied on the settled principle that an approved resolution plan not challenged becomes final and that a party's voluntary irrevocable undertaking before a court is operative between the parties.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court examined the terms of the High Court order that recorded the settlement proposal of the fund manager: (a) deposit of the entire principal with the Court/Administrator for disbursement; (b) disbursement contingent upon investors furnishing irrevocable undertakings not to pursue civil/criminal/regulatory proceedings and accepting the settlement monies; (c) explicit stipulation that investors who accept settlement would forgo their share under the CIRP and that those who do not accept the settlement would remain free to pursue CIRP claims. The Court found on the record that investors chose the settlement option, received monies under the High Court mechanism, and executed written irrevocable undertakings in the prescribed form. The subsequent High Court order recording that the settlement amounts had been disbursed and directing disbursal of CIRP monies to the fund manager reinforced that practical result.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - An investor who voluntarily accepts a court-supervised settlement and furnishes an irrevocable undertaking to withdraw/forgo claims is not entitled to receive the corresponding share under an approved resolution plan; such election is binding. Obiter - Observations on policy aspects of avoiding double recovery and on the propriety of settlements reached in criminal proceedings are ancillary.

Conclusion: The appellants, having accepted and received settlement monies and executed undertakings, were precluded from claiming the Rs. 16.10 crore (and associated equity allotment) available under the approved resolution plan; the Adjudicating Authority did not err in dismissing their application.

Issue 2 - Validity of representation of NCD/debenture holders by the trustee/authorised representative and its impact on the resolution process

Legal framework: Section 21(6)(A)(a) (as referenced) and related IBC provisions govern authorised representation of financial creditors in the CoC and the filing of Form C by authorised representatives; the Debenture Trust Deed governs removal/replacement of trustees by contractual process (e.g., clause requiring notice).

Precedent treatment: The Court treated procedural requirements in the trust deed and the IBC statutory mechanism as determinative; no authority was held to be overruled or distinguished.

Interpretation and reasoning: The record showed that the authorised representative (IDBI trustee) filed Form C, disclosed the beneficial investor (fund manager) and represented the 188 NCD holders in the CoC throughout CIRP. Applications by some individual debenture holders to change trustee/authorised representative were rejected by the Adjudicating Authority on the ground that the contractually required procedure for trustee removal had not been followed and that the interests of the NCD holders were protected under the plan. The Tribunal found no material showing procedural non-compliance that would invalidate the trustee's representation or the CoC decisions; the plan itself was not challenged within the statutory window and therefore became final.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Properly appointed authorised representation that complies with IBC/Form C requirements and the trust deed procedure cannot be lightly set aside in absence of invocation of the contractual removal mechanism; failure to challenge the approved plan renders objections to representation of limited weight. Obiter - Comments that lack of documentary proof of trustee removal justifies rejecting change requests.

Conclusion: The representation by the authorised representative was lawful and did not vitiate the resolution plan; objections based on alleged improper representation were without sufficient merit to disturb the approved plan.

Issue 3 - Interaction between separate judicial proceedings (criminal/quashing and CIRP) and whether High Court directions displace rights under an approved resolution plan

Legal framework: Different fora may decide related issues; final orders of a High Court that dispose of criminal/quashing proceedings and implement a settlement with conditions can have practical and binding consequences on parties' civil claims where parties have elected remedies subject to undertakings; an approved resolution plan that is not challenged remains binding under IBC.

Precedent treatment: The Court treated the High Court orders as operative on the parties who accepted the settlement and as furnishing the operative factual matrix that precluded double recovery; no conflict of law precedent was found to require displacing the Adjudicating Authority's decision.

Interpretation and reasoning: The High Court's orders provided investors with a clear election: accept settlement monies upon furnishing undertakings (thereby terminating other proceedings) or refuse and preserve CIRP claims. The Tribunal found that the investors who accepted the settlement knowingly chose the former, received the monies, and executed undertakings. The subsequent High Court direction that CIRP proceeds be disbursed to the fund manager after settlement completion corroborated that the settlement extinguished the investors' entitlement to the specific CIRP payout. Because the resolution plan itself remained uncontested and final, there was no basis to re-open CIRP distribution to investors who had bargained away their rights before the High Court.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - A court-supervised settlement accepted by investors with contractual/irrevocable undertakings will operate to preclude those investors from receiving the same or duplicative payments under an approved resolution plan; concomitant High Court orders implementing the settlement can validate the practical effect of such election. Obiter - Observations on the propriety of staying non-CIRP proceedings pending settlement implementation.

Conclusion: The High Court orders and the investors' undertakings operated to preclude the appellants from asserting entitlement under the resolution plan; the Adjudicating Authority's conclusion that the appellants had already received more than their entitlement under the plan was correct and the impugned order stands confirmed.

Overall disposition

Given (i) the finality of the approved resolution plan (unchallenged), (ii) lawful authorised representation of the NCD holders in the CoC, and (iii) the binding effect of the High Court-supervised settlement and the investors' irrevocable undertakings, the Tribunal correctly dismissed the application and the appeal was devoid of merit.

---