NCLAT: Only material irregularities in CIRP Regulations justify setting aside Section 31 IBC resolution plan approval challenge

NCLAT held that mere procedural deviations from CIRP Regulations do not automatically vitiate the resolution process; only a "material irregularity" that results in plainly illegal or unfair consequences affecting the integrity of the process warrants interference. Allegations of collusion between CoC, RP and an entrant, concealment from other PRAs, and delayed challenge by rival PRAs were examined, but the Tribunal found no material irregularity sufficient to invalidate the approved resolution plan. It observed that Regulations are facilitatory and cannot be allowed to defeat the Code's objective of value maximization. The challenge to the plan's approval was therefore untenable. The order of the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT) was set aside and the appeal was allowed.

---

---

ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1. Whether an Adjudicating Authority's order condoning delayed filing of an Expression of Interest (EoI) can validate the belated participation of a prospective resolution applicant and the subsequent actions of the Resolution Professional (RP) and Committee of Creditors (CoC).

2. Whether reception of a belated EoI and subsequent steps that omit the provisional/final PRA listing procedure prescribed by the CIRP Regulations constitute a material irregularity vitiating the resolution process.

3. Whether alleged concealment of a belated entrant and asserted collusion between RP, CoC and the entrant are established facts sufficient to nullify the approved resolution plan.

4. Whether late deposit of Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) accompanying a resolution plan, and CoC's condonation thereof, renders the process infirm.

5. Whether failure of unsuccessful resolution applicants to challenge the Adjudicating Authority's condonation order at the earliest stage or their conduct (receipt of communications, improvement opportunities, refund of EMD) estops them from contesting the approval on grounds of material irregularity.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1 - Legal character and effect of Adjudicating Authority's condonation order permitting belated EoI

Legal framework: Adjudicating Authority possesses inherent and statutory powers to condone delay under court rules; Regulations 36A and related provisions govern EoI timelines and procedure for provisional/final PRA lists.

Precedent Treatment: Authorities cited establish that the Adjudicating Authority has power to pass such orders and that RP/CoC are not bound to disregard an order of the Adjudicating Authority; prior ratios on whether a fresh Form-G is mandatory for a late entrant are discussed by parties.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court reads the condonation order as having (i) allowed EoI filing within the existing timeline for submission of plans without relaxing the substantive conditions, and (ii) expressly directing that consideration be "strictly in accordance with law." The order therefore did not license blanket non-compliance with Regulations but did validly permit the entrant to participate subject to compliance and CoC evaluation.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - an Adjudicating Authority's condonation of delay, when unchallenged, provides a legitimate basis for RP/CoC to receive/consider a belated EoI subject to compliance with eligibility and substantive requirements; Obiter - commentary on limits of review powers of Adjudicating Authority in other contexts.

Conclusion: The condonation order, neither assailed nor held void at the time, legitimately enabled reception of the EoI and downstream action by RP/CoC; the order's riders preserved the requirement of lawful consideration.

Issue 2 - Whether statutory violations (Regulations 36A, 36B, 39 etc.) amounted to material irregularity

Legal framework: CIRP Regulations are procedural/delegated legislation designed to secure fairness, transparency and value maximization; concept of "material irregularity" requires an impact assessment of any breach on fairness/integrity of the resolution process.

Precedent Treatment: The Court relies on Tribunal and Supreme Court principles distinguishing directory versus mandatory compliance and on prior articulation of material irregularity as requiring substantial impact on outcome; cases showing procedural non-compliance are not automatically fatal absent material prejudice.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court conducts an impact assessment rather than treating each regulatory breach as ipso facto voiding the process. It finds that (a) the condonation did not relax pre-qualification conditions; (b) the belated EoI was accepted pursuant to the Adjudicating Authority's order and the entrant submitted its plan on the last date; (c) there is no evidence the entrant lacked eligibility or had any unmerited advantage; (d) unsuccessful applicants were later afforded opportunities to improve their plans and did so; and (e) the late EMD was accepted/condoned by the CoC within its power under Regulation 36B(4A).

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - breach of CIRP Regulations will invalidate a resolution only if it causes material irregularity, i.e., a substantial impact on fairness, integrity, or outcome; Obiter - extended commentary on purpose of Regulations as facilitatory and the need for contextual application.

Conclusion: The specific regulatory deviations identified did not produce material irregularity in the circumstances; therefore the CoC's consideration and approval of the plan were not vitiated on that ground.

Issue 3 - Allegation of collusion and concealment between RP, CoC and entrant

Legal framework: Fraud or collusion must be inferred from cogent facts and circumstances; mere irregular acts or ordinary human conduct do not establish collusion.

Precedent Treatment: Principles requiring clear, demonstrable evidence to infer collusion; mere suspicion or fortuitous sequence of events insufficient.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court finds an absence of probative material demonstrating dishonest motive or clandestine deal-making: RP acted pursuant to an NCLT order; unsolicited advice to approach the Adjudicating Authority is benign; conduct such as requesting improvements of competing plans and communications (signatures on sealed covers, emails) indicate no deliberate concealment designed to prejudice other PRAs.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - collusion is not established where acts are explicable by lawful orders, ordinary conduct, or legitimate commercial choices and no specific evidence of dishonest concert is shown; Obiter - observations on RP's human conduct and expectations of disclosure duties.

Conclusion: Allegation of collusion and concealment is not established on the record and does not impugn the approval.

Issue 4 - Effect of late deposit of EMD and CoC's power to condone

Legal framework: Regulation 36B(4)/(4A) contemplates EMD deposit; CoC has authority to determine EMD timelines and to condone delays within its discretion.

Precedent Treatment: Authorities recognize CoC's role in assessing commercial matters and condoning procedural lapses where not affecting integrity of process.

Interpretation and reasoning: The entrant's EMD was deposited after public holidays; CoC condoned the delay. There is no proof that the late deposit conferred unfair advantage or altered comparative evaluation; the power to condone lies with CoC and the judicial role is limited to impact assessment.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - late EMD deposit condoned by CoC does not per se invalidate approval absent material prejudice; Obiter - remarks on NEFT/technical possibilities not determinative of substantive impact.

Conclusion: Late EMD deposit, condoned by CoC, did not amount to material irregularity in the circumstances.

Issue 5 - Locus, delay and estoppel of unsuccessful applicants

Legal framework: Parties challenging procedural acts must show substantive prejudice; estoppel/acquiescence may be considered but do not bar challenge to material illegality; timing and conduct bear on bona fides and prejudice.

Precedent Treatment: Courts may entertain delayed challenges where material irregularity is alleged; conversely, failure to act when informed and conduct such as accepting EMD refund may weaken challenge.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court notes unsuccessful applicants did not immediately challenge the condonation order or approval; evidence suggests they were aware (or should have been aware) of entrant's participation (signatures, emails, post-opening communications), and they were given opportunities to improve bids. While delay does not necessarily estop a valid challenge to material irregularity, here the absence of material prejudice and indicia of acquiescence undermine their claims.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - absence of prompt challenge and conduct consistent with participation/acquiescence weigh against overturning a plan absent material irregularity; Obiter - commentary that delay alone does not cure a material illegality.

Conclusion: The unsuccessful applicants' delay and conduct do not bar the Tribunal from deciding the merits but support refusal to set aside the approved plan where no material irregularity is made out.

FINAL CONCLUSION

The Tribunal holds that (a) the Adjudicating Authority's condonation order legitimately permitted the belated EoI subject to lawful consideration; (b) the identified breaches of CIRP Regulations did not cause material irregularity in the facts, impact or outcome of the process; (c) allegations of collusion are unproven; (d) the late EMD deposit condoned by the CoC did not vitiate the approval; and (e) therefore the Adjudicating Authority's order setting aside the CoC approval is set aside and the approval is to be revived for further adjudication under the relevant section for sanction of the resolution plan.

---