Commercial wisdom in insolvency: addendum held to be a modification, and the creditors' approval of the plan was upheld.

After closure of the challenge process, a resolution applicant cannot unilaterally alter its final commercial proposal through an addendum; the email was therefore a modification, not a clarification. The committee of creditors was entitled to refuse to reopen the process, assess plans on the prescribed multi-factor evaluation matrix, and approve a compliant plan in its commercial wisdom even if it was not the highest valued bid. The tribunal found no abdication of function, no material irregularity by the resolution professional, and no error in the adjudicating authority's approval of the successful resolution plan. Limited judicial review was reaffirmed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the email forwarding the addendum amounted to a clarification or a modification of the submitted resolution plan; (ii) Whether the committee of creditors' decision not to consider the addendum was invalid; (iii) Whether the committee of creditors' decision to approve a lower-valued plan was arbitrary or perverse in view of value maximisation; (iv) Whether the plan of the unsuccessful resolution applicant was considered independently and the committee of creditors abdicated its function in favour of the professional advisor; (v) Whether any material irregularity was committed by the resolution professional in conducting the resolution process; (vi) Whether the adjudicating authority erred in rejecting the application and approving the successful resolution plan.

Issue (i): Whether the email forwarding the addendum amounted to a clarification or a modification of the submitted resolution plan.

Analysis: The addendum changed the commercial terms of the final signed plan by increasing the upfront cash component and the equity infusion. It was not merely explanatory, because it sought to alter the financial proposal after closure of the challenge process. The process note prohibited any upward or downward revision after the final proposal had become binding, and the addendum would have improved the bidder's ranking under the evaluation matrix.

Conclusion: The email and addendum constituted a modification of the resolution plan, not a mere clarification.

Issue (ii): Whether the committee of creditors' decision not to consider the addendum was invalid.

Analysis: The challenge process and process note made the final financial proposal binding after closure, and expressly barred later modification. The addendum was unsolicited and was submitted after the voting process had been set in motion. The committee of creditors considered the addendum, discussed the legal position, and recorded reasons for declining to reopen the process. The decision fell within its commercial discretion and did not violate the governing framework.

Conclusion: The decision not to consider the addendum was valid and tenable in law.

Issue (iii): Whether the committee of creditors' decision to approve a lower-valued plan was arbitrary or perverse in view of value maximisation.

Analysis: Although value maximisation is an important objective of the insolvency process, the committee of creditors is not bound to approve the highest net present value or the highest gross value. The evaluation matrix gave weight to multiple quantitative and qualitative parameters, including upfront recovery, deferred payments, equity infusion, feasibility, viability, and turnaround capability. The committee of creditors evaluated all plans on the prescribed matrix and approved the plan that obtained the highest overall score and was found commercially preferable.

Conclusion: The decision to approve the successful resolution plan was not arbitrary or perverse.

Issue (iv): Whether the plan of the unsuccessful resolution applicant was considered independently and the committee of creditors abdicated its function in favour of the professional advisor.

Analysis: The minutes showed that the committee of creditors discussed the professional advisor's report, raised queries, sought revised qualitative scoring, and then considered all resolution plans before voting. The advisor assisted the committee of creditors, but the final decision was taken by the committee itself. The unsuccessful applicant's plan, without the addendum, was factored into the evaluation matrix and deliberated upon.

Conclusion: The plan was considered and there was no abdication of jurisdiction by the committee of creditors.

Issue (v): Whether any material irregularity was committed by the resolution professional in conducting the resolution process.

Analysis: The resolution professional circulated the addendum to the committee of creditors and sought its views. His observation that the addendum appeared to violate the process note was tentative and linked to the committee of creditors' eventual decision. No breach of the Code, the regulations, or the process documents was shown, and no material irregularity in conduct of the process was established.

Conclusion: No material irregularity was committed by the resolution professional.

Issue (vi): Whether the adjudicating authority erred in rejecting the application and approving the successful resolution plan.

Analysis: The adjudicating authority upheld the committee of creditors' commercial decision after finding compliance with the Code and the regulations. The successful resolution plan satisfied the statutory requirements, had the requisite voting support, and was approved after due evaluation. No ground for appellate interference was made out.

Conclusion: The adjudicating authority did not err in rejecting the challenge and approving the successful resolution plan.

Final Conclusion: The appellate tribunal reaffirmed the limited scope of judicial review over the commercial wisdom of the committee of creditors and upheld the resolution process, evaluation matrix, and approval of the successful resolution plan.

Ratio Decidendi: After closure of a challenge process, a resolution applicant cannot unilaterally modify its final commercial proposal; the committee of creditors may evaluate plans on a multi-factor evaluation matrix and approve any compliant plan in its commercial wisdom, subject only to limited statutory review for compliance and material irregularity.

---