Rejection of personal repayment plans under s.114(1) IBC upheld after group insolvency finding; s.115 revision denied, appeal dismissed

NCLAT upheld the Adjudicating Authority's rejection of the personal repayment plans, finding the tribunal properly exercised power under s.114(1) IBC after concluding the plans were not considered as group insolvency and the appellants failed to file the modified plans within the directed time. The court found no perversity in the record, and denial of revision under s.115 did not call for interference. Subsequent bankruptcy declarations of corporate guarantors rendered the challenge to the repayment-plan rejection practically moot. Appeal dismissed.

---

---

ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1. Whether repayment plans submitted by multiple personal guarantors under Section 105 of the IBC can be considered collectively as a "group" process or must be considered independently for each guarantor.

2. Whether the Resolution Professional's conduct in convening meetings under Section 106 and recording minutes indicating joint discussion vitiates the independent consideration requirement and renders the subsequent rejection under Section 115 and report under Section 112 invalid.

3. Whether failure of personal guarantors to submit modified repayment plans within time, after assurances and extensions, justifies rejection under Sections 114-115 of the IBC and forecloses appellate interference.

4. Whether principles enunciated in the controlling precedent concerning involvement of debtors and personal guarantors in repayment-plan discussions were followed and, if not, whether any deviation affected legality of the rejection.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1 - Individual v. Group Consideration of Repayment Plans

Legal framework: Sections 95, 97, 100, 105-107, 112-115 and 123 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC); IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Personal Guarantors to Corporate Debtors) Regulations, 2019 (Regulation 10); duties of Resolution Professional under Section 105(1) and meeting/consideration procedures under Section 106(3)-(4).

Precedent treatment: The Court relied upon and applied the principles of the apex decision emphasizing participation of erstwhile management and guarantors in discussions of repayment plans (referred to in the judgment as binding guidance). That precedent was followed for the proposition that involvement and opportunity to negotiate are required.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal examined minutes and proceedings of meetings convened by the Resolution Professional and found that, despite being convened in common sittings, each repayment plan was individually deliberated, considered and rejected on its own merits. The mere fact that multiple guarantors were represented jointly or that meetings were held in a consolidated manner does not, without more, convert individually submitted plans into a single "group" insolvency plan. The record showed independent discussion of terms, voting, and specific findings on each plan (e.g., offered Rs.21 crores vs expected Rs.25 crores and 10% upfront cash requirement).

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - repayment plans submitted under Section 105 must be considered on their individual merits and procedural consolidation (e.g., joint meetings) does not convert independent plans into a group insolvency process where the minutes and decision-making demonstrate independent consideration. Obiter - observations on practical aspects of representation and commercial negotiations.

Conclusions: The Court concluded that the Resolution Professional and Committee of Creditors considered each plan independently; therefore, the rejection could not be impugned on the ground of impermissible "group" consideration.

Issue 2 - Legality of Resolution Professional's Procedure and Minutes

Legal framework: Sections 105-107, 112 and 114-115 IBC; Section 105(1) duties of the RP to assist debtors/guarantors in preparing repayment plans; Section 106(3)-(4) regarding meetings of creditors; Section 114(1) and 115 on rejection and grounds.

Precedent treatment: The Court applied the cited precedent requiring engagement of creditors and guarantors in plan discussions and construed Section 105(1) as imposing an active consultative role on the Resolution Professional. That precedent was treated as followed insofar as meetings must allow negotiation and involvement.

Interpretation and reasoning: The appellants alleged ignorance and lack of assistance by the Resolution Professional, arguing this made the procedure unfair. The Tribunal, however, on review of the record, found that the RP had given prior information, afforded opportunities to submit revised offers, granted extensions, and recorded assurances from guarantors seeking time to revise proposals. The minutes reflected that the RP informed guarantors of CoC conditions, and assurances to provide modified plans were given but not honored. Lack of submission of modified plans, not any procedural deficiency, was the critical fact.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - where the RP conducts meetings in accordance with Sections 105-106, provides information, and creditors deliberate individually, the absence of further assistance does not invalidate rejection if the guarantors themselves fail to respond or revise proposals. Obiter - remarks on what constitutes adequate assistance in other factual matrices.

Conclusions: The procedure adopted by the RP and CoC did not vitiate the process; the minutes and conduct demonstrated compliance with statutory requirements and the guiding precedent.

Issue 3 - Effect of Failure to Submit Revised Repayment Plans and Applicability of Sections 114-115

Legal framework: Sections 106(3)-(4), 112, 114(1), 115 and 123 IBC; consequences of non-compliance with CoC directions and deadlines.

Precedent treatment: The Tribunal relied on statutory scheme and prior holdings that allow rejection where applicants fail to comply with time-limited directions or fail to submit revised proposals after being afforded opportunities; the precedent requiring meaningful involvement does not insulate a party from consequences of inaction.

Interpretation and reasoning: The record showed repeated opportunities (meeting on 21.11.2022, extensions to 29.11.2022 and later to 05.01.2023) and specific instructions to submit modified proposals. The guarantors repeatedly sought time, accepted conditions subject to modification but ultimately did not submit modifications. CoC rejected plans by 100% voting and directed report under Section 112, leading to rejection order under Section 115. The Tribunal held that rejection was compelled by statutory provisions when applicants default in updating proposals within the provided time and that this procedural failure-standing unchallenged as per the record-justified dismissal of appellate challenge.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - where applicants are afforded opportunities and fail to submit revised repayment plans within the time permitted, rejection under Sections 114-115 is legally sustainable. Obiter - comment that subsequent bankruptcy declarations may render standalone challenge to plan rejection academic.

Conclusions: The rejection of repayment plans was warranted by the applicants' failure to submit modified proposals despite extensions; appellate interference was unwarranted.

Issue 4 - Compliance with Controlling Precedent on Debtor/Guarantor Involvement

Legal framework: Statutory duties under Section 105(1) and the requirement of meaningful participation in plan negotiations as elucidated by the controlling precedent.

Precedent treatment: The controlling decision (referred to in the judgment) was expressly applied and held to have been complied with because the RP enabled discussions, the guarantors participated and were given opportunities to revise, and minutes reflect such engagement.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal contrasted formal compliance (provision of opportunities and recorded discussions) with appellants' later assertion of ignorance. Given the documentary record showing invitations, meetings, offers, counteroffers and extensions, the Court held the precedent's requirements were met. The fact that guarantors ultimately did not perform their promised revisions negated any prejudice claimed from procedural non-compliance.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - statutory and judicially required involvement of guarantors was satisfied by the RP's conduct as evidenced by the record; lack of follow-through by guarantors cannot be converted into procedural infirmity. Obiter - cautionary note that different factual records could lead to different outcomes.

Conclusions: The Tribunal found adherence to the precedent; no ground for setting aside the rejection on this basis.

Outcome

Given independent consideration of each repayment plan, compliance with statutory meeting procedures, repeated opportunities and extensions afforded to the guarantors, and failure of the guarantors to submit modified plans, the rejection orders under Section 115 were held to be lawful and interlocutory appeals dismissed; consequential findings that further bankruptcy declarations render the present challenge largely academic were also recorded.

---