Separate subsidiary assets cannot be forced into a holding company CIRP, and commercially approved resolution terms were upheld.

Separate subsidiaries' foreign oil and gas assets could not be brought into the holding company's CIRP or Information Memorandum merely because the corporate debtor had shareholding, financing linkage, or guarantee exposure. The record treated those assets as distinct from the domestic business, and the later resolution-process findings had already rejected inclusion. The commercial wisdom of the CoC also governed approval of the BPRL-related transaction, and the contractual right of first refusal could not be ignored where the resolution was otherwise legally and commercially workable. The contrary inclusion direction was set aside, while the later approvals were upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the foreign oil and gas assets held through the offshore subsidiaries could be included in the CIRP and Information Memorandum of Videocon Industries Ltd and its consolidated group companies. (ii) Whether the later approval of the BPRL-related transaction and the dismissal of the challenge to it could be interfered with in the present appeals.

Issue (i): Whether the foreign oil and gas assets held through the offshore subsidiaries could be included in the CIRP and Information Memorandum of Videocon Industries Ltd and its consolidated group companies.

Analysis: The record showed that the foreign assets were held through separate subsidiaries and were always treated as distinct from the domestic business. The earlier letters, restructuring documents, valuation process, and the conduct of the parties all reflected that the offshore assets were not part of the domestic CIRP estate. The Court also held that the assets of subsidiaries could not be included in the CIRP of the corporate debtor merely because the holding company had exposure through shareholding or guarantees. The earlier order directing inclusion of those assets had already been stayed, and the later decision on the resolution plan had conclusively rejected the same contention.

Conclusion: The foreign oil and gas assets could not be included in the CIRP or Information Memorandum of Videocon Industries Ltd, and the contrary direction of the NCLT dated 12.02.2020 could not survive.

Issue (ii): Whether the later approval of the BPRL-related transaction and the dismissal of the challenge to it could be interfered with in the present appeals.

Analysis: The Court found that the BPRL transaction was approved after the CoC considered the pre-existing contractual framework and the need for an implementable resolution. It held that the commercial wisdom of the CoC governed the matter, that the contractual right of first refusal could not be ignored in the insolvency process, and that no jurisdictional or legal infirmity was shown in the NCLT's later order. The Court also noted that the same objections had already been rejected in earlier proceedings.

Conclusion: The later orders approving the BPRL-related transaction were upheld and the challenges to them were rejected.

Final Conclusion: The exclusion of the foreign oil and gas assets from the domestic CIRP was affirmed, the impugned NCLT order of 12.02.2020 was set aside, the appeals against that order succeeded, and the separate appeals challenging the later NCLT order failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Assets of separate subsidiaries cannot be forced into the CIRP of the holding company merely because the holding company has a shareholding interest, financing linkage, or guarantee exposure, and the CoC's commercially viable resolution of such assets will ordinarily not be disturbed when it accords with the Code and contractual rights.

---