Admitted operational debt requirement under insolvency law was not satisfied, so committee notice and recall of the resolution plan were refused.

An admitted operational debt is a prerequisite for notice of committee of creditors meetings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and that threshold was not met here because the claim remained disputed, contingent, and subject to reciprocal counter-claims under the same contract. The communication relied on did not amount to an unconditional admission of liability, so Section 24(3)(c) was inapplicable. Disputed contractual issues on renewal and counter-claim did not by themselves establish fraud, suppression, procedural irregularity, or mandatory violation sufficient to disturb the approved resolution plan. As the plan had already been implemented, interference was declined and recall was not warranted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order rejecting recall of the approved resolution plan suffered from illegality, procedural irregularity, fraud, suppression of material facts, or violation of mandatory provisions of insolvency law so as to warrant interference; and whether the appellant's claim was an admitted operational debt entitling it to notice of committee of creditors meetings.

Analysis: The claim filed by the appellant was not finally admitted as an undisputed operational debt, as the record showed verification difficulties and substantial reciprocal disputes and counter-claims arising from the same contract. The communication relied upon by the appellant did not establish an unconditional admission of the claim; instead, the claim was treated as contingent in view of the existing disputes. The applicability of Section 24(3)(c) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 presupposed an admitted operational debt, which was absent here. The challenge to the treatment of the contractual relationship, the alleged automatic renewal, and the counter-claim involved disputed contractual questions that could not by themselves invalidate the insolvency process or the approved resolution plan. No material irregularity, fraud, suppression, or prejudice affecting the resolution process was established, and the approved resolution plan having been implemented, interference was to remain limited.

Conclusion: The appellant was not entitled to notice of committee of creditors meetings on the footing of an admitted operational debt, and no ground was made out to recall or interfere with the approved resolution plan.

---