IBC's overriding effect was held to displace inconsistent...

IBC's overriding effect was held to displace inconsistent contractual or prior statutory claims, and the approved resolution plan was binding on all stakeholders, including shareholders and the State. A shareholder of the corporate debtor had no independent right in project or leasehold assets, so dilution of that interest under the CIRP was a statutory insolvency consequence, not a violation of Article 300A. The Court also rejected Article 14 and plan-modification objections, holding that retention of the operator fell within commercial discretion and supported going-concern continuity. Fresh tender and FDI-based challenges were declined as matters within the insolvency framework and regulatory domain. Re-litigation was treated as abuse of process, and costs were upheld.