Commercial wisdom of CoC limits remand of an approved resolution plan; adjudicating authority cannot revisit issues already addressed.

Where a resolution plan had already been approved by the Committee of Creditors, the NCLAT held that the Adjudicating Authority could not remand it on general concerns about attached assets, disputed property, project flats, licences or pending homebuyer claims when those issues had already been considered in the plan. The Tribunal noted that the disputed property was already before pending proceedings, Section 32A protection under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code could apply to the provisional attachment, and the plan provided for the licence and homebuyer issues. In the absence of any identified statutory contravention or material irregularity, the Adjudicating Authority could not substitute its own view for the commercial wisdom of the Committee of Creditors, and the remand was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Adjudicating Authority could remand a resolution plan approved by the Committee of Creditors on the grounds relating to attached assets, disputed properties, project flats, licences and pending homebuyer claims, and whether such interference was permissible in view of the commercial wisdom of the Committee of Creditors.

Analysis: The resolution plan had already been approved by the Committee of Creditors with the requisite majority after deliberation on the very matters on which remand was ordered. The disputed Khan property was already subject to pending proceedings and the plan had treated it in accordance with the directions of the Supreme Court. The provisional attachment by the Enforcement Directorate did not justify remand because the protection under Section 32A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was attracted once the resolution process was advanced on approved terms. The treatment of the Era Divine Court flats had already been addressed through undertakings and parallel proceedings, the DTCP licence issues were specifically provided for in the plan, and the plan itself ensured parity for homebuyers who had not filed claims. In such circumstances, the Adjudicating Authority could not substitute its own view for the commercial decision of the Committee of Creditors without identifying any contravention of law or material irregularity.

Conclusion: The remand directions were unsustainable, and the resolution plan ought to be considered for approval in accordance with law.

Final Conclusion: Interference with the approved resolution plan was held impermissible and the matter was restored for fresh consideration of approval before the Adjudicating Authority.

Ratio Decidendi: Once a resolution plan has been approved by the Committee of Creditors in exercise of its commercial wisdom, the Adjudicating Authority may interfere only within the limited confines of statutory compliance and material irregularity, and cannot remand the plan on generalized concerns already addressed by the plan or by the record.

---