AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) 
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter. 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (12) TMI 1316
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Appellants : Mr. Krishnendu Dutta, Mr. Abhijeet Sinha, Sr. Advocates with Mr. Kunal Kanungo, Mr. Anuj Tiwari, Mr. Pulkit Sharma, Ms. Tanushree Sogani, Ms. Niharika Sharma, Mr. Atishay Jain, Ms. Henna Kochhar, Ms. Aroshi Pal, Mr. Nishant Chotani and Ms. Bandita , Advocates For the Respondents : Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Pooja Mahajan, Ms. Mahima Singh, Ms. Shreya Mahalwan, Mr. Raghav Agarwal, Mr. Saurabh Bacchawat, Advocates for R-1/RP. Mr. Sudhir K. Makkar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Divij Kumar, Mr. Varun Tandon and Mr. Shivang Mukherjee, Advocates for R-2/CoC. Mr. Ardhendmauli Kumar Prasad & Mr. Anupam Lal Das, Sr. Advocate with Mr. SP Singh Chawla, Mr. Sinha Shrey Nikhilesh, Mr. S. Shishir, Mr. Parth Davar, Mr. Rohit H. Nair, Ms. Sarakshi Asarsa, Mr. Swastik Verma, Ms. Shivali Singh, Advocates for R-3/SRA. Mr. Ramji Srinivasan, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mahima Singh and Ms. Pooja Mahajan , Advocates for RP JUDGMENT ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. These five Appeal(s) arise out of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process ("CIRP") of the Corporate Debtor ("CD") - Reliance Broadcast Network Limited. Abhijit Realtors & Infraventure Pvt. Ltd. and Creative Channel Advertis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ants ("PRAs"). On 15.06.2023, the RP issued the request for the Resolution Plan, Evaluation Matrix and Information Memorandum and provided access to Virtual Data Room to PRAs. (iii) Six Resolution Plans were received from Resolution Applicants, where Abhijit Realtors & Infraventure Pvt. Ltd. gave a bid of Rs.80.20 crores, Creative Channel Advertising & Marketing Pvt. Ltd. gave a bid of Rs.100 crores, Entertainment Network (India) Limited ("ENIL") gave bid of Rs.37.17 crores and Sapphire Media Ltd. gave a bid of Rs.104.28 crores. The Committee of Creditors ("CoC") decided to hold Challenge Process as per the RFRP. On 12.10.2023, the RP issued Challenge Process Document (Process Note) containing key terms for conduct of Challenge Process. Base price of INR 240 crores was set for start of the Bid Process. At the end of each round, the bid with highest value will be the "Threshold Bid Amount" for the next round. The Resolution Applicant was required to either match or exceed the Threshold Bid amount for the respective round in order to continue participating in the Challenge Process. Each incremental bid of the Resolution Applicants was to be in multiple of Rs.10 crores. Abhij....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he CoC approving the Resolution Plan of Sapphire Media Ltd. and declaring the Applicant as the unsuccessful Resolution Applicant. Certain other prayers were made in the Application, including direction to recommence the entire process. IA No.614 of 2024 was filed on 03.02.2024, after the plan approval application was reserved on 02.01.2024. (viii) Creative Channel Advertising & Marketing Pvt. Ltd., who did not participate in the challenge process, however, participated in the negotiation process, filed IA No.290 of 2024 seeking declaration that SRA - Sapphire Media Ltd. was ineligible to submit its Resolution Plan. It was also prayed that IA No.5391 of 2023 seeking approval of the Resolution Plan be rejected. Direction was also sought to start de novo process for the examination of the Resolution Plans of other existing qualified PRAs. (ix) The Adjudicating Authority heard both the parties in IAs filed by the Consortium as well as Creative Channel Advertising & Marketing Pvt. Ltd. and by order dated 06.05.2024 dismissed IA No.5572 of 2023 filed by the Consortium. By a separate order dated 06.05.2024, IA No.614 of 2024 filed by Consortium and IA No.290 of 2024 file....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ental bid was liable to be exited from the process. The challenge mechanism carried out in pursuance of the process note was in contravention of Regulation 39(1A) of CIRP Regulations 2016. Under Regulation 39(1A) of the CIRP Regulations, a Resolution Professional can allow modification of the Resolution Plan not more than once or use a challenge mechanism to enable PRAs to improve their plans. It is impermissible in law to adopt both the process in the Resolution Process. The illegal process adopted by the Resolution Professional goes to the root of the entire process which was ex facie contrary to the IBC and Regulations. No Resolution Plan in pursuance of such process could have been approved. The mere participation in the Resolution Process by the consortium or giving an undertaking cannot stop the consortium from bringing to the notice of the Tribunal illegalities in the Resolution Process which go to the root of the matter vitiating the entire process. The entire process commencing from issuance of process note is materially irregular, contrary to the IBC and no such Resolution Plan can pass muster. Clause 7 of the process note contemplate that at the end of each round, Resolu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... a company only and not to an individual. The word 'entity' is intended to refer exclusively to a company or limited liability partnership and not to any other category of entity. SRA was only incorporated nearly six months before submission of the plan. The definition of group is exhaustive and does not include an individual. The corporate entity is different from that of its shareholders. EoI envisaged a provision for consortium, however, SRA has not submitted its Resolution Plan in a consortium. Resolution Professional and CoC cannot be allowed to take shelter of commercial wisdom to conceal the frauds in the CIRP leading to approval of the Resolution Plan of an ineligible Resolution Applicant. The mere fact that no objection was raised by consortium when the final list of eligible PRA was published cannot stop the consortium from raising objection before the Adjudicating Authority when the plan approval application came up for consideration. An SRA who is ineligible cannot be allowed to implement the Resolution Plan nor any such Resolution Plan of an ineligible SRA can be approved by the Adjudicating Authority. CA Certificate dated 04.11.2023 has been referred by the Adjudicati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....SRA has given the highest bid in the challenge process. It is submitted that the CoC decided to adopt a challenge process with the object of maximisation of the assets of the Corporate Debtor. All the Resolution Applicants were informed by the Resolution Professional to put the highest offer. On 04.11.2023, revised final financial proposals were submitted by the Resolution Applicants. SRA gave financial proposal of Rs.261 Crores, Consortium gave Rs.248 Crores and Creative gave Rs.240 Crores. On 06.11.2023, in the 12th CoC meeting where the revised proposals were opened in the presence of the relevant Resolution Applicants, the representatives of the consortium have expressed their satisfaction with the negotiation by the CoC. The CoC deliberated on the feasibility and viability of the Resolution Plans and evaluated them as per the evaluation matrix and by vote share of 88.97% approved the Resolution Plan of SRA. The submission of the consortium that they were wrongly exited after Round 2 is incorrect. During the challenge process, there were objections by e-mail raised by consortium which was duly replied by the Resolution Professional clarifying the process. All Resolution Applica....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nes issued by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting filed along with the rejoinder, Clause 2.5 itself indicate that the expression 'entity' includes an individual. The CA Certificate dated 08.05.2020 was given to the Resolution Professional by the SRA which was verified by the Resolution Professional fulfilling both the criteria of turnover and net worth. When the revised financials were to be given by the Resolution Applicants which was given by the Appellant on 04.11.2023 with an updated CA Certificate signed by Garima Grover, which has been referred to and noted by the Adjudicating Authority which has shown increase in the financials. The CA Certificate by one Sachin which is relied by Appellant was not certificate given by the SRA but was certificate obtained by Creative, another Resolution Applicant which did not reflect the correct financial position of the SRA. Resolution Professional has conducted due-diligence on the basis of materials on record and was satisfied about the eligibility of SRA and other Resolution Applicants. It is submitted that the documents which are sought to be introduced by IA Nos.4691 of 2024 and 4692 of 2024 needs no consideration and those do....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....te' before entity. Interpretation put by CoC and the Resolution Professional who are framers of Expression of Interest has to be accepted who are well versed with the documents and intention. The interpretation which was put by the CoC is with the object to maximise the assets of the corporate debtor. Certificate which was given by statutory auditor in May 2023, net worth was Rs.84 Crores. A fresh certificate was given on 04.11.2023 where net worth was shown as Rs.175 Crores. Average turnover of 12 group companies also fulfilled the threshold. Blacklisting by the IOC has been set aside by the Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court by its final judgment, however, the blacklisting by IOC is not covered by clause 8(d). The Income Tax Returns and GST Returns which are sought to be filed by IA No.4691 of 2024 and IA No.4692 of 2024 cannot be accepted. There is a clear bar on the appellants under Section 151 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and Section 138 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to produce or rely on to the returns. Appellant has not disclosed the source from which it has received the said documents. Appellant cannot be permitted to rely on the said documents nor th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....licants who do not score the highest on the Evaluation Matrix) at any stage to achieve a successful insolvency resolution of the Company and maximize the value for all stakeholders. The CoC and/or the Resolution Professional (acting on the instructions of the CoC) may, at their sole discretion, decide any method or process for negotiations with the Resolution Applicant(s) regarding the Resolution Plans received prior to voting in accordance with Applicable Law, which may include, but shall not be limited to, a price discovery process, outbidding process, open challenge or Swiss challenge process and each Resolution Applicant shall be bound by the terms goverming such a process, which shall be decided by the CoC in its commercial wisdom. The timelines and process for the negotiation shall be determined and/or communicated if considered necessary, at a later date. The Resolution Applicant shall not object to, and must participate in, the implementation of such negotiation process. By submitting the Resolution Plan, the Resolution Applicant shall be deemed to have unequivocally agreed that any process of negotiation adopted by the Committee of Creditors shall be binding on them and th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h decision via the authorised e- mail-ID. The bid so, submitted will be considered as their final bid. Resolution Applicants shall be required to participate in each round except where they have already communicated their decision to exit the Challenge Process in writing. Provided that in case the amount bid by a Resolution Applicant in the previous bid round constitutes Threshold Bid Amount for the next round, such Resolution Applicant shall have the option to either not participate in such next round or he may improve its financial proposal over Threshold Bid Amount in such next round. Provided further that where all the active participating Resolution Applicants are at the Threshold Bid Amount, all such Resolution Applicants shall be required to participate in the next round ( in such a case it would be conveyed to the Resolution Applicant ) " 15. Clause 9 deals with the 'elimination/ exit' which is to the following effect:- "9. Elimination/Exit. In the event a Resolution Applicant does not match or exceed the Threshold Bid Amount for a particular round, the highest Financial Proposal of such Resolution Applicant shall be considered as the final bid of the R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d to bid of Rs.241 Crores given by SRA. Objection was that SRA has to give bid in increment of Rs.10 Crores and SRA gave bid of Rs.241 Crores, hence, SRA should not be allowed to bid further. The e-mail sent on behalf of Abhijit Realtors on 27.10.2023 at 12.49 PM is as follows:- "On Fr, Oct 27, 2023 at 12:49 PM Vijay P Lulla ***: Dear Sir. Please note that at the end of round 1 the highest bid was declared at Rs. 241 crores. As per the challenge process document and our discussions with the RF team we were made to understand the base price for bidding is Rs. 240 crores with increments of Rs. 10 crores. Only in case any RA does not want to give bid above the threshold value then they may give their best bid and it will be their last bid in this case the bid of the RA who has given the bid of Rs. 241 crores should be taken as the last bid and not allowed to bid further. However, in the meeting you allowed him to bid further. This is in contravention to the challenge process mechanism. Kindly either announce that this was his last bid or strap the process and redo the entire process again. Regards Vijay Lulla" 19. The Resolution....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... sent on behalf of the Consortium that they have given a valid bid. On same day at 13.44, Resolution Professional sent an e- mail informing the Consortium that the bids submitted being not in the terms of Challenge Process, the consortium shall be deemed to have been exited to the Challenge Process. E-mail sent by the Resolution Professional is as follows:- "Subject: Re: Bid for Round 2 From Rohit Mehra RBNL <**@gmail.com> on Fri, 27 0ct 2023 13:44:20 To: Vijay P Lulla Cc: Mehul Shah Dear Sir, Basis the bid submitted by you in the last round, in terms of the Challenge Process document, you are deemed to have exited the Challenge Process. Accordingly, you are requested to submit the draft of the revised resolution plan after incorporating the highest financial proposal submitted by you in round 2. Thanks & Regards," 22. Submission has been advanced by the Appellant that the Appellant has been exited from 2nd round illegally. It is submitted that the Consortium was entitled to match the last threshold bid, in Round 1 Rs.241 Crores was highest bid and the bid which was to be given of Rs.242 Crores was hi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hallenge Process adopted by the Resolution Professional is in violation of Regulation 39(1A) of the CIRP Regulations. Regulation 39(1A) of the CIRP Regulations is as follows:- " 39. Approval of resolution plan.- (1A) The resolution professional may, if envisaged in the request for resolution plan- (a) allow modification of the resolution plan received under sub-regulation (1), but not more than once; or (b) use a challenge mechanism to enable resolution applicants to improve their plans. " 25. The use of challenge mechanism is fully provided in the Regulation also as noted above. Further, RFRP, as noted above, provided for conducting a Challenge Process. We do not find any violation of Regulation 39(1A) of the CIRP Regulations in the Challenge Process conducted by the Resolution Professional. 26. Now we come to the Negotiation Process which was undertaken by the Resolution Professional under the decision of the CoC. All Resolution Applicants were called for negotiation. Clause 2.3.11 of the RFRP clearly empowers the CoC to conduct various rounds of negotiations with the Prospective Resolution Applicants in the interest of value maximisation. Clause ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ven in the challenge process. Creative also gave proposal of Rs.240 Crores although did not participate in the Challenge Process. In the 12th CoC meeting held on 06.11.2023, the revised proposals received from the Resolution Applicants were opened. One of the CoC members even asked the Consortium if they are satisfied with the Challenge Process and further negotiations by the CoC. In the minutes of 12th CoC meeting, representative of the Consortium stated that they are satisfied with the negotiation process which is recorded in the minutes. Resolution Professional has filed the minutes of 12th CoC meeting (has also filed unredacted copies of the minutes as directed by this Tribunal while reserving the judgment). It is useful to extract following part of the minutes where statement made by Consortium was recorded that they agreed to negotiation process conducted by the CoC:- "HSBC representative requested representative of the Consortium to confirm if they were satisfied with the opportunities provided to them to improve their financial proposal. Representative of Consortium clarified that they agreed to the overall process conducted by the CoC to negotiate with the Resolut....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ry prospective resolution applicant in the provisional list. " 31. One of the submissions has also been raised on Regulation 36B (3) that minimum 30 days' period was required to be allowed to submit a Resolution Plan. In the present case, RFRP was issued and required period of 30 days was very well provided. The objection by the Respondent was that since no objection was filed, provisional list of Prospective Resolution Applicants became final. 32. It is true that when no objection was raised to inclusion of Resolution Applicants in the provisional list and the final list, the Resolution Applicants are to be treated eligible to participate in the process and in the process, no objection can be taken regarding eligibility. However, when the Resolution Plan came for approval before the Adjudicating Authority, in a case where it is found that Resolution Applicant is not eligible and does not fulfil any requirement of eligibility, the Adjudicating Authority in no manner is deprived from considering the said question regarding eligibility. The objection regarding eligibility of Resolution Applicant, thus, can very well be considered by the Adjudicating Authority while considering ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e eligibility mentioned in sub-clauses (a) and (b) which is also the case of the CoC as well as the Resolution Professional also. It is relevant to notice that when the Resolution Professional was examining the list of EoIs received from the Corporate Debtor. In the 4th CoC meeting held on 08.06.2023, a list of 22 EoIs received has been tabulated by the IRP which has been brought on the record at Pages 96 and 97 of the common reply filed by the Resolution Professional in these Appeals. It is useful to extract the list where the name of SRA is mentioned and there is a Note (2) in the list which is to the following effect:- "2. Applicant incorporated on 21st Oct, 2022, earlier a sole proprietorship. We have considered the net worth of individual Promoter for eligibility Received EOI on 1st June 2023 10:50 AM IST from Indian representatives of the applicant." 35. Thus, the Resolution Professional has treated the net worth of individual promoter for eligibility of SRA which is fact mentioned in the list of EoIs received which was placed before the CoC. The challenge of the Appellant is that it is only body corporate which is entitled to become a Resolution Applicant and it ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt of an entity directly or indirectly holding 26% or more of the share capital of the Prospective Resolution Applicant. An entity which directly or indirectly holds 26% share capital may be an individual or a corporate entity or both. Sub-clause (iv), as noted above, is an entity which directly or indirectly has power to direct the management and policies of the Prospective Resolution Applicant whether through the ownership of securities or agreement or any other arrangement or otherwise. The above clause is couched in a very wide sense. An entity which has the power to direct or cause to be directed the management and policies of the Prospective Resolution Applicants can both may be an individual or corporate entity. In the present case, Sahil Mangla holds 99.99% shares of the Corporate Debtor. There is no indication in the definition of group which can be read to mean that word 'entity' has been used in the sense that it should be a corporate entity. Ministry of Information & Broadcasting Guidelines dated 25.07.2011 has also been brought on the record by Rejoinder-Affidavit filed by the Appellant. The expression 'entity' has been used in the said guidelines which was issued in 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in "Agmatel India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Resoursys Telecom and Ors.- (2022) 5 SCC 362" where in paragraphs 24 and 26, following has been laid down:- "24. The scope of judicial review in contractual matters, and particularly in relation to the process of interpretation of tender document, has been the subject-matter of discussion in various decisions of this Court. We need not multiply the authorities on the subject, as suffice it would be refer to the three- Judge Bench decision of this Court in Galaxy Transport Agencies wherein, among others, the said decision in Afcons Infrastructure has also been considered; and this Court has disapproved the interference by the High Court in the interpretation by the tender inviting authority of the eligibility term relating to the category of vehicles required to be held by the bidders, in the tender floated for supply of vehicles for the carriage of troops and equipment. 26. The abovementioned statements of law make it amply clear that the author of the tender document is taken to be the best person to understand and appreciate its requirements; and if its interpretation is manifestly in consonance with the language of the tender do....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s are possible then the interpretation of the author must be accepted. The courts will only interfere to prevent arbitrariness, irrationality, bias, mala fides or perversity. With this approach in mind we shall deal with the present case." 41. We, thus, are of the view that the inclusion of the net worth and turnover of the promoter while examining the eligibility of the SRA cannot be said to be contrary to the Invitation for Expression of Interest. Resolution Professional has verified the eligibility of SRA and other Resolution Applicants and found the SRA eligible. The Resolution Professional in common reply filed in the appeal has pleaded that the SRA fulfils both net worth criteria and turnover criteria. It is useful to extract paragraph 10.17 of the common reply, which is as follows:- "10.17. Notably, even though the requirement as per the IEOI is to meet either the net worth or turnover criteria at group level, the SRA met both criteria. It is relevant to point out that the SRA was corporatized on 21 October 2022, prior to which, the business of the SRA was being operated under a sole proprietorship of Mr. Sahil Mangla, the promoter of SRA who holds 99.99% shareho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the SRA was being operated under a sole proprietorship of Mr. Sahil Mangla who corporatized the business through incorporation of a company and transfer of proprietary business to the company as a going concern. Since the turnover is of a business (turnover of company sans business has no meaning), in terms of averaging, the turnover of the business for FY 2020-2021 and FY 2021- 2022 would necessarily need to be considered and added to the turnover for FY 2022-2023. Apart from the above, the average consolidated turnover of the SRA at the promoter group level was also higher than the minimum stipulated amount of INR 75 Crores for the 3 immediately preceding audited financial years." 42. Submission was also made that CA certificate which was referred to by the Adjudicating Authority dated 04.11.2023 whereas EoI was submitted in May 2023, Resolution Professional has explained and clarified that at the time of submission of EoI, a CA Certificate was submitted in May 2023 by Garima Grover, however, when increase financial proposals were submitted by a plan as was asked by the Resolution Professional by letter dated 02.11.2023, on 04.11.2023, when plan was submitted SRA ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unconditional and should be submitted in the format attached as Annexure 'B', It should be accompanied with the following documents information, as applicable: a) For all PRAs-Profile of PRA including subsidiary (wholly-owned subsidiary and partly owned subsidiary if any), promoter and promoter group, parent company and ultimate parent company, key managerial personnel and board of directors. b) For all PRAs-Proof of address along with copies of Certificate of Incorporation/Registration and Constitutional Documents (MOA, AOA) or other equivalent organizational documents. Copy of PAN card. GST number or equivalent documents. c) For all PRAS- Audited financial statements of the last three years and its group company as per eligibility criteria. d) For all PRAS- A notarized declaration from the PRA in order to demonstrate that the promoter/ promoter Group or any other Group company are part of the same group, in case the interested party is using such entities for meeting the eligibility criteria. Please note that the PRA shall provide all relevant documents for its promoter/ promoter Group or any other Group company. if required to meet the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xpression of Interest. Clause 5(d) is as follows:- "d) Any entity which has been barred by the Central State Government or any other relevant regulator, or any entity acting jointly or in concert or controlled by them, from operating or. engaging in its business, as on the date of submission of the EOI, would not be eligible to submit the EoI, either individually or as member of a Consortium and its networth turnover etc. can also not be taken into consideration. In case any such prohibition is imposed after the submission of the Eol, then such applicant shall be disqualified. In case the RP or the CoC subsequently becomes aware or is made aware of any disqualification of the Prospective Resolution Applicant, then they shall have a right to disqualify such Prospective Resolution Applicant from the resolution process." 47. When we look into the said clause 5(d) 'entity' which has been barred by the Central Government/ State Government or any other relevant Regulator only then Clause (d) shall be attracted. Indian Oil Corporation is not covered under Clause 5(d). Furthermore, in view of the order of the Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court which has been placed by the Re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n plan the adjudicating authority (NCLT) is not expected to do anything more; but is obligated to initiate liquidation process under Section 33(1) of the I&B Code. The legislature has not endowed the adjudicating authority (NCLT) with the jurisdiction or authority to analyse or evaluate the commercial decision of CoC much less to enquire into the justness of the rejection of the resolution plan by the dissenting financial creditors. From the legislative history and the background in which the I&B Code has been enacted, it is noticed that a completely new approach has been adopted for speeding up the recovery of the debt due from the defaulting companies. In the new approach, there is a calm period followed by a swift resolution process to be completed within 270 days (outer limit) failing which, initiation of liquidation process has been made inevitable and mandatory. In the earlier regime, the corporate debtor could indefinitely continue to enjoy the protection given under Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies Act, 1985 or under other such enactments which has now been forsaken. Besides, the commercial wisdom of CoC has been given paramount status without any judicial interv....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ggage of variety of factors. To wit, the feasibility and viability of the proposed resolution plan and including their perceptions about the general capability of the resolution applicant to translate the projected plan into a reality. The resolution applicant may have given projections backed by normative data but still in the opinion of the dissenting financial creditors, it would not be free from being speculative. These aspects are completely within the domain of the financial creditors who are called upon to vote on the resolution plan under Section 30(4) of the I&B Code." 50. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Jaypee Kensington Boulevard Apartments Welfare Assn. Vs. NBCC (India) Ltd., (2022) 1 SCC 401" has again reiterated that the Adjudicating Authority has limited jurisdiction in the matter of approval of Resolution Plan. Paragraph 108 of the judgment is as follows:- "108. To put in a nutshell, the adjudicating authority has limited jurisdiction in the matter of approval of a resolution plan, which is well-defined and circumscribed by Sections 30(2) and 31 of the Code read with the parameters delineated by this Court in the decisions abovereferred. The jurisdiction o....