National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Allows Appeal in Insolvency Resolution Process Due to Procedural Errors. Resolution Plan Rejected for Lack of Compliance with Section 31(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Tribunals: National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Bench: NEW DELHI
  • 1
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The appeal was filed by Express Resorts and Hotels Limited, the Successful Resolution Applicant, against an order rejecting their resolution plan for Neesa Leisure Limited in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process initiated on 26.04.2019. The resolution plan was submitted on 17.08.2020 and was approved by the Committee of Creditors on 24.10.2020. However, the Adjudicating Authority later rejected the plan on 04.03.2024, citing non-compliance with Section 31(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and issues regarding the transparency of the approval process. The Appellant contended that the plan was compliant with Section 30(2) and was approved by the requisite majority of the Committee of Creditors, arguing that the Adjudicating Authority's rejection lacked cogent reasoning. The Tribunal noted that the resolution plan had been approved after due deliberation and that the objections raised by the suspended management and other creditors were not sufficient to undermine the commercial wisdom exercised by the Committee of Creditors. The Tribunal ultimately set aside the impugned order, directing the Adjudicating Authority to pass a fresh order on the application for approval of the resolution plan within three months, emphasizing the need for timely resolution in insolvency proceedings.

Headnote

A) Insolvency Law - Approval of Resolution Plan - Compliance with Section 31(1) - The resolution plan was rejected for failing to meet statutory requirements under the IBC, 2016 - The Adjudicating Authority found that the process lacked transparency and did not adequately address creditor claims - Held that the plan did not comply with the necessary legal standards (Paras 27-28).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the resolution plan submitted by the Appellant complied with the requirements under Section 31(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order rejecting the resolution plan and directed the Adjudicating Authority to pass a fresh order on the application for approval of the resolution plan within three months.

Law Points

  • Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code
  • 2016
  • Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process
  • Section 31(1)
  • Section 30(2)
  • commercial wisdom of Committee of Creditors
  • judicial review limitations
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2026 LawText (NCLAT) (05) 34

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 517 of 2024

2024-03-04

Ajai Das Mehrotra

Mr. Abhijeet Sinha, Mr. Raheel Patel, Mr. Himanshu Satija, Mr. Anshul Rao, Ms. Heena Kochar, Mr. Varun Kalra, Mr. Samir Malik, Mr. Shahan Ulla, Mr. Maulin Raval, Mr. Vatsa Vyer, Mr. Deepanshu Chandra, Mr. Krishna, Mr. Aspi Kapadia, Mr. Jaitegan Singh Khurana, Mr. Uday Bedi, Mr. Navin Pahwa, Mr. Mohit D. Ram, Ms. Nayan Gupta

Express Resorts and Hotels Limited

Neesa Leisure Limited, Amit Jain, State Bank of India, Corporation Bank, Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Paisalo Digital Limited, IFCI Limited, Syndicate Bank, Bank of India, Saraswat Co Operative Bank Limited, Bhupendra Singh Rajput, HT Media Limited, Ex-Directors of the Suspended Board of Management, RARE Asset Reconstruction Limited

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Appeal against the rejection of a resolution plan in insolvency proceedings.

Remedy Sought

Approval of the resolution plan submitted by the Appellant.

Filing Reason

The resolution plan was rejected by the Adjudicating Authority.

Previous Decisions

The resolution plan was previously approved by the Committee of Creditors.

Issues

Whether the resolution plan complied with Section 31(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. Whether the Adjudicating Authority's rejection of the resolution plan was justified.

Submissions/Arguments

The Appellant argued that the resolution plan was compliant with Section 30(2) and was approved by the Committee of Creditors. The Respondents contended that the resolution plan lacked transparency and did not adequately address creditor claims.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal emphasized the importance of adhering to the statutory requirements of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, particularly regarding the approval process of resolution plans by the Committee of Creditors, and the limitations of judicial review in such matters.

Judgment Excerpts

The resolution plan does not comply with the requirements under Sec 31(1) and is rejected under Sec 31(2). The impugned order is set aside. The matter is remitted to the Adjudicating Authority to pass fresh order on IA No. 851/AHM/NCLT/2020 filed by the RP for the approval of the Resolution Plan.

Procedural History

The Corporate Debtor was admitted to CIRP on 26.04.2019. The resolution plan was submitted on 17.08.2020 and approved by the Committee of Creditors on 24.10.2020. The plan was rejected by the Adjudicating Authority on 04.03.2024, leading to the present appeal.

Acts & Sections

  • Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016: Section 31, Section 30
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Upholds Customary Puja Bonus Despite Ex Gratia Declarations. Puja Bonus Recognized as Customary Payment When Unbroken Series, Long Period, Uniform Rate, and Paid in Loss Years, Even if Employer Previously Labeled it Ex Gratia.
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows State's Appeal in Land Acquisition Delay Condonation Matter; Restores Subordinate Judge's Order and Remits Review Petition. Government Delay in Filing Review Petition Need Not Be Explained Day-to-Day Under Section 5 of Limitation...