2021 (4) TMI 237 - AT - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Permission for withdrawal of appeal - Section 33(2) of the Insolvency Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - HELD THAT - The direction sought for to interfere with the decision of Committee of Creditors cannot be considered in as much as Resolution Plan was submitted after the last date was over etc. Appeal dismissed as withdrawn.

Summary

Issues:
1. Maintainability of the appeal under Section 33(2) of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 in light of the Supreme Court judgment.
2. Interference with the commercial decision of the Committee of Creditors by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT).
3. Observations of the Adjudicating Authority regarding the interference with the decision of the Committee of Creditors.

Analysis:

1. The judgment addressed the issue of the maintainability of the appeal under Section 33(2) of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016, considering the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Court referred to the Supreme Court's observations at Paragraphs 155 to 159, emphasizing the importance of the decision of the Committee of Creditors (CoC) based on 'commercial wisdom.' The Court noted that the CoC's decision, approved by a significant majority, should not be interfered with, except within the limited scope provided under Sections 30 and 31 of the I&B Code. The Court concluded that the NCLAT was not correct in law to interfere with the commercial decision taken by the CoC by a substantial majority, ultimately allowing the appeals filed by various parties related to the matter.

2. The judgment delved into the aspect of interference with the commercial decision of the Committee of Creditors by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT). It highlighted that the NCLAT's interference with the CoC's decision, which was taken with a thumping majority, was in excess of jurisdiction. The Court observed that the NCLAT's actions led to a situation where the subsequent approval of the resolution plan by the CoC became non-est in law, as it was only to abide by the directions of the NCLAT. The judgment emphasized that the decision taken by the CoC in accordance with its 'commercial wisdom' and approved by the NCLT should prevail, and the NCLAT was not justified in interfering with the CoC's decision.

3. Additionally, the judgment mentioned the observations of the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT, Hyderabad) in the impugned order dated 8.2.2021. The Adjudicating Authority noted that the direction sought to interfere with the decision of the Committee of Creditors could not be considered, as the resolution plan was submitted after the last date had passed. This observation further supported the dismissal of the appeal, as the Learned Counsel for the Appellant sought withdrawal of the appeal, leading to the Tribunal dismissing the appeal as withdrawn and closing all connected Interlocutory Applications without any order as to costs.

In conclusion, the judgment provided a detailed analysis of the issues related to the maintainability of the appeal, interference with the CoC's commercial decision, and the observations of the Adjudicating Authority, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the appeal as withdrawn based on the request of the Appellant's Counsel.