TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) whether the suspended director had locus standi to challenge approval of the resolution plan and the intervention application; (ii) whether the valuation of the corporate debtor's assets and approval of the resolution plan suffered from any material irregularity warranting interference.
Issue (i): whether the suspended director had locus standi to challenge approval of the resolution plan and the intervention application.
Analysis: The appeal was by a suspended director and personal guarantor challenging the approval of the resolution plan after its approval by the Committee of Creditors and the Adjudicating Authority. The record showed that the objection was raised long after the plan approval and that earlier challenges by the appellant had already failed. The Tribunal noted that a suspended director may have a limited role in CIRP, but not an unfettered right to question an approved resolution plan merely to reopen settled proceedings.
Conclusion: The challenge on locus was rejected against the appellant.
Issue (ii): whether the valuation of the corporate debtor's assets and approval of the resolution plan suffered from any material irregularity warranting interference.
Analysis: The Tribunal held that valuation for CIRP purposes had been carried out by IBBI-registered valuers appointed after commencement of CIRP and that the fair and liquidation values were shared with the Committee of Creditors in accordance with the CIRP Regulations. Pre-CIRP valuations and a later privately commissioned valuation were held to be irrelevant for upsetting the CIRP valuation exercise. The Tribunal also found that the appellant had not cooperated with the resolution professional, had not raised timely objections in the Committee of Creditors, and that the resolution plan had been approved with a large majority and complied with the statutory requirements, including eligibility under Section 29A and compliance under Section 30(2).
Conclusion: No material irregularity in valuation or plan approval was found, and the challenge failed.
Final Conclusion: The approved resolution plan was upheld, and the intervention challenge was found to be an attempt to reopen completed CIRP steps without merit.
Ratio Decidendi: Valuation for CIRP must be judged on the basis of valuations carried out by registered valuers under the Code and CIRP Regulations, and once a resolution plan is approved by the Committee of Creditors in accordance with the statutory framework, a suspended director cannot reopen it on belated valuation objections.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
