Late challenge to approved resolution plan's distribution under IBC s.61(2) rejected; appeal dismissed as time-barred.

The dominant issue was maintainability under s.61(2) IBC. The appellate tribunal held the appeal was filed beyond the statutory period, no application for condonation was on record, and no "sufficient cause" was shown; consequently, the appeal was dismissed as time-barred and not entertained. The tribunal further held that the appellant's plea of discriminatory distribution under the approved resolution plan was, in substance, a belated challenge to the plan, which had attained finality and stood "frozen" upon approval; consequently, no modification of distribution or interference with implementation was permitted and the impugned orders were left undisturbed.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

(i) Whether the appeal against dismissal of the application seeking re-distribution/modification of payments under an already approved resolution plan was maintainable, having regard to limitation under Section 61(2) of the Code and absence of any sufficient cause/condonation request.

(ii) Whether a secured financial creditor could, by filing a belated application styled as seeking "equal treatment" in distribution, indirectly reopen or modify the distribution mechanism of a resolution plan that had already been approved and had attained finality.

(iii) Whether, upon approval of a resolution plan under Section 31, the plan stood "frozen" and binding so as to bar subsequent attempts to claim amounts or seek modifications beyond what the plan provided, and whether the principle affirmed in Ghanashyam Mishra applied to such an attempt.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue (i): Maintainability and limitation under Section 61(2) of the Code

Legal framework (as discussed): The Court applied Section 61(2) of the Code, noting that an appeal must be filed within 30 days, with a further condonable period of up to 15 days only on showing sufficient cause.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court found that the appeal was filed beyond the permissible period. It noted that limitation was incorrectly computed by relying on the date of the certified copy rather than the statutory scheme, and that there was neither a sufficient explanation for delay nor any application for condonation of delay on record. Since the statute restricts condonation beyond the prescribed outer limit, the Court held the appeal could not be entertained.

Conclusion: The appeal was held to be belated and barred by limitation under Section 61(2), rendering it not maintainable on this ground alone.

Issue (ii): Whether belated "equal treatment" application was a disguised challenge to an approved plan and could be entertained

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court examined the reliefs sought and held that, despite being framed as a request to remove "discrimination," the application and the appeal effectively sought: (a) modification of distribution terms of the approved resolution plan, (b) alteration of definitive documents executed pursuant to implementation, and (c) stay of implementation. The Court treated this as a challenge to the resolution plan itself, attempted through an intervention/application route after the statutory appeal window had closed. It further held that the underlying application before the Adjudicating Authority was itself filed after gross and unjustified delay, despite the applicants' knowledge of the plan contents and approval process, amounting to acquiescence. The Court accepted that the Adjudicating Authority lacked jurisdiction to change/modify an already approved plan, and that filing such applications appeared intended to create an appellate route indirectly.

Conclusion: The Court held the proceedings were not maintainable because they were a belated, indirect attempt to reopen and modify a plan that had already attained finality; the applicants were estopped by delay and acquiescence from seeking such relief.

Issue (iii): Finality and binding nature of an approved resolution plan ("frozen plan"); applicability of Ghanashyam Mishra

Legal framework (as applied): The Court applied the binding effect of an approved resolution plan under Section 31, and relied on the proposition that, once approved, the plan becomes binding and the claims as provided stand frozen.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court upheld the reasoning that once the resolution plan had been approved and had attained finality (no timely appeal against the plan approval order), the stakeholders could not seek payments or recoveries in any manner other than what was envisaged under the plan. The Court rejected the contention that Ghanashyam Mishra was inapplicable, holding that the principle of the plan being frozen and binding prevented saddling the resolution applicant with liabilities not foreseen under the approved plan. The Court also found unpersuasive the argument that mere "readjustment" of distribution within the same overall plan value would not affect the plan, holding that such modification would still upset the plan and introduce uncertainty, particularly after implementation had commenced.

Conclusion: The Court held that the approved resolution plan stood frozen and binding; the attempt to alter distribution/payments post-approval was barred. The Court affirmed the applicability of the principle relied upon from Ghanashyam Mishra to reject post-approval modification attempts.

---