Resolution plan approval upheld where secured creditor payout, valuation, and CoC commercial wisdom supported the insolvency process.

A resolution plan approved under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code was not interfered with where the appellant, treated as a secured creditor under Section 13A of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Area Development Act, was offered payment higher than that to secured financial creditors, satisfying Section 30(2). The valuation challenge was rejected because valuation had been conducted under Regulation 35 and accepted by the committee of creditors. The objection to assigning section 66 application proceeds to the resolution applicant was declined as a matter within the committee's commercial wisdom. The claim to premium accruing during the CIRP period was confined to the limited treatment recognised in earlier authority.

---

---

Issues: Whether the approved resolution plan warranted interference on the grounds that the appellant's payout was not in compliance with the insolvency law, the valuation was erroneous, the proceeds of the section 66 application could not be assigned to the resolution applicant, and the premium accruing during the CIRP period had to be treated as CIRP cost.

Analysis: The appellant was to be treated as a secured creditor by virtue of Section 13A of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Area Development Act, 1976, and the resolution plan provided payment of Rs. 16.50 crores, which was higher than the amount provided to the secured financial creditors. On that basis, the payout to the appellant was found to be in accordance with law and consistent with Section 30(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The challenge to valuation was not entertained at the stage of approval of the resolution plan because the valuation had been carried out under Regulation 35 of the Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons Regulations, 2016 and accepted by the committee of creditors. The claim regarding premium accruing during the CIRP period was dealt with by following the earlier view on similar claims, and the appellant was held entitled only to the same limited treatment indicated in that line of authority. The objection to assignment of the proceeds of the section 66 application to the resolution applicant was rejected because the matter fell within the commercial wisdom of the committee of creditors.

Conclusion: No ground was made out to interfere with the order approving the resolution plan and rejecting the appellant's objection, although the appellant was entitled to the same limited protection regarding CIRP-period premium as recognised in the earlier decision.

---