IBC resolution plan supremacy upheld, with shareholder claims, Article 300A challenge, and fresh tender objections rejected.

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....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.....