2022 (6) TMI 387 - SC - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Rejection of modification/amendment of the resolution plan - Appellate Tribunal took note of the grievance of the appellant that its resolution plan came to be known to everyone and hence, no opportunity should have been given to the others to modify - HELD THAT - The Appellate Tribunal found no substance in those submissions while taking the view that the Adjudicating Authority had passed the impugned order so as to maintain the level playing field. The Appellate Tribunal also took note of the fact that the resolution plans had already been considered by CoC on 21.12.2021. On a perusal of the order dated 13.12.2021, this much is clear that certain key features/stipulations of the resolution plan were sought to be amended by the appellant. Whether it was done in response to the requirement of the CoC or otherwise, the fact of the matter remains that there was going to be modification of the relevant terms of the resolution plan of the appellant. When that was being permitted at the request of the appellant himself, we cannot find fault in the Adjudicating Authority having passed an order so as to balance the position of the respective parties and to provide level playing field by granting corresponding permission to the other resolution applicant to place its modification for consideration of CoC. The view taken by the Adjudicating Authority as also by the Appellate Tribunal appears to be reasonable and sound, calling for no interference. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
- Interpretation of Section 62 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016
- Amendment of resolution plan in corporate insolvency resolution process
- Granting permission for modification of resolution plan to ensure a level playing field
- Consideration of affidavit for clarification in respect of resolution plan
- Adjudicating Authority's discretion in balancing the position of resolution applicants

Interpretation of Section 62 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016:
The Supreme Court, comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vikram Nath, analyzed the appeal under Section 62 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Court declined to entertain the appeal by a resolution applicant in the corporate insolvency resolution process concerning the corporate debtor, B.B. Foods Pvt. Ltd.

Amendment of Resolution Plan in Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process:
The case involved two resolution applicants, including a consortium led by the appellant. The CoC deliberated on the resolution plans submitted by both applicants. The appellant sought to amend its resolution plan, which was initially declined by the resolution professional. Subsequently, the Adjudicating Authority granted the appellant's request for amendment but also allowed the other resolution applicant to modify their plan to maintain a level playing field.

Granting Permission for Modification of Resolution Plan to Ensure a Level Playing Field:
The Adjudicating Authority's order allowed the appellant to amend its resolution plan while permitting the other resolution applicant to make modifications. This decision aimed to balance the positions of the respective parties and ensure fairness in the resolution process.

Consideration of Affidavit for Clarification in Respect of Resolution Plan:
The appellant submitted an affidavit clarifying aspects of the resolution plan, including payment schedules and modifications. The Court noted that certain key features of the plan were amended, leading to a need for balancing the positions of the resolution applicants.

Adjudicating Authority's Discretion in Balancing the Position of Resolution Applicants:
The Court upheld the decisions of the Adjudicating Authority and the Appellate Tribunal, finding them reasonable and justifiable. It emphasized that the Authority's order aimed to provide a level playing field by allowing modifications to both resolution plans. The Court dismissed the appeal, leaving further examination to the Adjudicating Authority in accordance with the law.

This detailed analysis of the judgment showcases the Court's interpretation of the legal provisions, the rationale behind permitting amendments and modifications to resolution plans, and the importance of maintaining fairness and balance in the corporate insolvency resolution process.