Approval of resolution plan and revival of lease affirmed; Committee commercial wisdom upheld and appeal dismissed

Approval of a resolution plan under insolvency law was maintained on merits: the adjudicating authority found the Committee of Creditors' commercial wisdom valid and the Resolution Professional's conduct did not vitiate approval, so the plan stands and the appeal was dismissed. The termination notice for a lease was set aside and the lease revived, restoring the corporate debtor's interest in the asset. The Successful Resolution Applicant remains bound by its submitted plan and cannot withdraw from its obligations. Requests for additional undertakings from the lessor were refused and alleged alterations to the approved plan were not substantiated.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the adjudicating authority was vitiated in approving the resolution plan (I.A. No.159/2020) and in rejecting the applicant's I.A. No.717/2025 seeking directions against the Resolution Professional and protections regarding the lease, such as to warrant interference by this Tribunal.

Analysis: The appeal challenges the approval of the resolution plan on grounds including alleged non-disclosure/withholding of pleadings by the Resolution Professional, denial of inspection, unilateral alteration of the plan, failure to file Form-H and uncertainty regarding the status of the corporate debtor's lease granted by GIDC. The adjudicating authority and this Tribunal's earlier order set aside GIDC's termination of the lease and revived I.A. No.159/2020; the CoC had approved the plan with a clear voting majority and the plan complied with Section 30(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The adjudicating authority recorded that the SRA was aware of the lease and had conducted due diligence; safeguards required under the information memorandum and plan implementation (including no-dues obligations regarding GIDC) fall on the RP and CoC. Repeated litigation accounted for delay and does not provide a ground to permit the SRA to resile from a plan duly approved by the CoC. Alleged procedural irregularities by the RP (inspection denial, non-sharing of pleadings, failure to file Form-H) were considered by the adjudicating authority and found insufficient to upset plan approval; the reliefs sought in I.A. No.717/2025 (including directions to IBBI and undertaking from GIDC) were not shown to be necessary to protect the implementability of the plan given the revival of the lease and the adjudicating authority's findings.

Conclusion: The adjudicating authority's approval of I.A. No.159/2020 and rejection of I.A. No.717/2025 do not warrant interference; the appeal is dismissed and the decision is in favour of the Respondent.

---