Appeal remitted for targeted reconsideration of resolution plan compliance under Section 30(2)(b)(ii), Regulation 36B(4A) and Section 30(4)

NCLAT (LB) allowed the appeal by way of remand, directing the adjudicating authority to reconsider limited compliance issues in the resolution plan under Section 30(2)(b)(ii) and Regulation 36B(4A). The tribunal found deficiencies - non-deposit of performance security, failure to disclose source of funds, and unmet feasibility/viability under Section 30(4) - and held the CoC had improperly voted on the entire plan despite changing membership. Applying SC precedents (Ebix Singapore, Prabhjit Singh), NCLAT required targeted reexamination and re-voting on the specific queries rather than wholesale reconsideration, and remitted the matter for fresh decision in accordance with law.

---

---

ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1. Whether an Adjudicating Authority (AA) or Appellate Tribunal, when remitting a resolution plan to the Committee of Creditors (CoC), can direct reconsideration only on specific elements identified in its order or may direct reconsideration of the entire plan.

2. Whether assignees of financial creditors who step into the shoes of original CoC members can revisit or reverse an earlier assent given by the assignor to a resolution plan upon remand for reconsideration.

3. Whether the revised resolution plan complied with the statutory and regulatory requirements identified by the AA, namely:

3a. Equitable treatment of creditors of the same class as required by Section 30(2)(b)(ii) of the Code;

3b. Deposit/ provision of performance security under Regulation 36B(4A) of the CIRP Regulations and conformity with Section 30(4) of the Code;

3c. Absence of conditionality (feasibility and viability) in the plan (Section 30(4));

3d. Adequate disclosure and substantiation of source of funds for implementation of the plan;

3e. Inclusion of provisions for effective implementation of the plan.

4. Whether the CoC's commercial wisdom and discretion permit it to treat reconsideration as a fresh approval process (including voting on the whole plan) after a remand that, as contended, was limited in scope.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1 - Scope of Remand by AA/Tribunal

Legal framework: The AA's powers under Section 31 and the supervisory role of Appellate Tribunal under Section 61; principles established by higher judicial precedent restricting remand to reconsideration of specific elements to secure compliance under Section 30(2) and Section 30(4).

Precedent treatment: Followed the Supreme Court rulings that an AA can direct the CoC to reconsider certain elements of a resolution plan to ensure statutory compliance (cited principles from Ebix Singapore and Prabhjit Singh line of authorities).

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court held that where an appellate order remits a plan identifying specific defects, the CoC (and RP) are obliged to address only those defects; permitting reconsideration of the entire plan undermines the supervisory restraint and the binding effect of an earlier assent. Remand for limited reconsideration is distinct from sending the plan afresh for whole-sale re-evaluation.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - remand limited to specific elements identified by AA; Obiter - observations on instances when an AA may legitimately require broader reconsideration (implicit limits).

Conclusion: The Tribunal erred in treating the remand as permitting full reconsideration; remand should have been confined to the specific issues indicated by the AA.

Issue 2 - Effect of Assignment on Previously Given Assent

Legal framework: Principles of assignment (stepping into shoes) and binding nature of CoC votes once cast, read with the Code's objective to uphold commercial certainty in the CIRP process.

Precedent treatment: Applied established notions that assignees assume rights and liabilities of assignors but must respect decisions already made where remand is limited to specific issues.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court reasoned that where an original CoC assenting creditor approved a plan and the AA remanded only specific elements, subsequent assignees stepping into the assignor's position cannot, merely by virtue of assignment, defeat the earlier assent on matters outside the scope of remand. Allowing assignees to overturn prior assent on issues not remitted would undermine sanctity of approved plan and commercial certainty.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - assignees cannot revisit or overturn prior assent on matters beyond the scope of remand; Obiter - discussion on practical limits to this principle where explicit statutory or contractual rights permit otherwise.

Conclusion: Assignees stepping into shoes of original consenting creditors are bound by the earlier assent for issues not remanded for reconsideration.

Issue 3a - Equitable Treatment of Creditors (Section 30(2)(b)(ii))

Legal framework: Section 30(2)(b)(ii) requires equitable treatment of creditors belonging to the same class; Section 30(4) requires feasibility and viability; Regulations and RFRP provisions guide allocation and distribution.

Precedent treatment: The Tribunal identified non-compliance; the Appellant amended allocations in revised plan to provide uniform percentage treatment to secured financial creditors.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court accepted that the revised plan corrected differential treatment by allocating the same percentage of admitted claims to secured financial creditors, thereby addressing the statutory defect identified by the AA.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - the revised plan, as amended, complied with equitable treatment requirement for the identified class.

Conclusion: That defect was rectified in the revised plan.

Issue 3b - Performance Security (Regulation 36B(4A))

Legal framework: Regulation 36B(4A) mandates performance security requirements in the CIRP process; non-deposit may affect compliance with Section 30(4).

Precedent treatment: Tribunal found non-deposit violative; revised plan included an undertaking to provide performance guarantee consistent with RFRP Clause 1.9.1.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Appellant's undertaking to furnish performance guarantee was treated as rectification of the regulatory deficiency identified by the AA.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - undertaking to provide performance guarantee addressed the non-deposit objection such that the plan complied with the Regulation as amended.

Conclusion: This statutory objection was cured by the revised plan's commitment to provide the performance security.

Issue 3c - Conditionality and Feasibility (Clause 11.8.1, Section 30(4))

Legal framework: Section 30(4) prohibits conditional plans that undermine feasibility/viability; a plan must be implementable without contingent clauses that allow unilateral termination defeating the AA's approval.

Precedent treatment: Tribunal flagged Clause 11.8.1 as making the plan conditional; revised plan modified Clause 11.8.1 to remove impermissible conditionality.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court found the modification brought the plan into compliance with the statutory standard of feasibility and viability.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - conditionality objection was resolved by amendment; obiter remarks concern boundaries of permissible carve-outs subject to AA approval.

Conclusion: The feasibility/conditionality concern was addressed in the revised plan.

Issue 3d - Disclosure and Source of Funds

Legal framework: Section 30(2)(b) and RFRP/Regulation 39 require disclosure of source of funds and proof of financial capability to implement the plan.

Precedent treatment: The Tribunal had asked for substantiation; CoC raised concerns about non-binding comfort letters and sufficiency of documentary proof; Appellant supplemented with additional comfort letters, net worth certificates and audited statements including an NBFC comfort letter for substantial inter-corporate deposit.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court observed that the RFRP required that the RA satisfy the CoC of availability of resources but not prescribe an exhaustive mode of substantiation; the Appellant produced additional documents (including financial statements of the comfort-provider) that, on prima facie review, addressed concerns. CoC's reservations as to non-binding nature and cross-default clauses were properly matters for consideration but did not automatically render the revised plan non-compliant if adequate proof was supplied.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - where an applicant supplements source-of-funds proof in response to remand, the CoC's dissatisfaction must be confined to the remanded issues and supported by cogent reasons; Obiter - specific weight to be accorded to non-binding comfort letters depends on factual assessment by CoC/AA.

Conclusion: The revised plan included additional substantiation; whether the proof suffices is for the CoC/AA to consider within the limited scope of remand and not to reopen unrelated facets of the plan.

Issue 3e - Provisions for Effective Implementation

Legal framework: Section 30(4) requires that a resolution plan contain provisions for effective implementation; RFRP timelines and implementation schedule clauses bear on this requirement.

Precedent treatment: Tribunal required effective implementation provisions; RP/CoC raised practicality/timeline concerns; Appellant amended implementation schedule and monitoring committee clauses and provided clarifications.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court noted the revised plan addressed identified implementation defects but recognized that operational prudence and commercial aspects of implementation (e.g., timelines, monitoring committee powers) are within CoC commercial domain - albeit constrained by remand scope.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - defects on implementation can be remedied by targeted amendments; Obiter - CoC's assessment of practicality is commercial judgment but must not exceed remand boundaries.

Conclusion: Implementation-related defects had been addressed in the revised plan; CoC may assess practicality only insofar as it relates to the remitted elements.

Issue 4 - CoC Commercial Wisdom vs. Limited Remand

Legal framework: Judicial recognition that CoC's commercial wisdom is generally non-justiciable (K. Sashidhar principle) but constrained by statutory compliance and limited remand directives from AA/Appellate Tribunal.

Precedent treatment: Cited authorities confirm CoC discretion in commercial matters, but appellate remand must be respected in scope; AA may either approve, reject, or send back for reconsideration on specified defects, not for total reappraisal.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court reconciled non-justiciability of commercial wisdom with the requirement that remand directions be observed - the CoC cannot treat a limited remand as a license to re-examine the entire plan or to overturn earlier assents on issues not remitted. Where remand is limited, any fresh voting on entire plan by a reconstituted CoC that effectively negates original assent goes beyond permissible commercial reconsideration.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - commercial wisdom of CoC prevails except where it conflicts with explicit, limited remand directives from AA/Tribunal; Obiter - guidelines on how CoC should document reasons when it seeks to re-open matters beyond the scope of remand.

Conclusion: CoC's commercial discretion is respected but cannot be used to subvert a limited remand; the Tribunal erred in dismissing the appellant's challenge to full-scale reconsideration.

Final Disposition (as per Court's conclusion)

The Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order dismissing the application that sought re-voting limited to remanded issues, and remitted the matter back to the Tribunal to decide afresh in accordance with law and the principles governing limited remand as articulated by higher courts. The parties were directed to appear before the Tribunal on the specified date; observations in the appellate judgment were for disposal of the appeal only and no costs were awarded.

---