CoC Has Discretion To Allow Resolution Applicant To Submit Revised Plan If Its Name Appears In Final Resolution Applicant List: NCLAT
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) has held that the committee of creditors (CoC) has discretion to allow the Resolution Applicant to submit a revised plan to maximise the value of the corporate debtor's assets if the Resolution Applicant's name appears in the final RA list. The present...
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) has held that the committee of creditors (CoC) has discretion to allow the Resolution Applicant to submit a revised plan to maximise the value of the corporate debtor's assets if the Resolution Applicant's name appears in the final RA list.
The present appeal has been filed against an order passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) Mumbai. By the impugned order, the 3rd member of the NCLT allowed the Respondent No. 3 (R-3) and the Appellant to submit the revised and compliant resolution plans to maximise the value of the corporate debtor's assets.
The Appellant submitted that R-3 having not submitted a revised plan within the time allowed by the CoC, it had no jurisdiction to submit revised plan, more so, when voting on the resolution plan of the appellant had already commenced on 22.05.2024.
Per contra, the Respondent submitted that under the Request for Resolution Plan (RFRP), the CoC has ample power to take a decision to stop the process for the approval of the resolution plan at any stage and invite one or other RA for negotiation for value maximisation.
The Tribunal observed that in the present case, before the voting could take place, the CoC consciously decided to consider the R-3's resolution plan as confirmed by the affidavit filed by the CoC before the Adjudicating Authority. The present case is distinguishable from Jindal Stainless Steel wherein the name of the applicant was not in the final RA list whereas in the present case the R-3 was in the RA final list and allowed to submit the revised plan.
It further noted that although the R-3 withdrew its name from the list via e-mail, the said mail was retracted after two days and confirmed that the R-3 would submit a revised plan. Clause 1.11.1 of the RFRP prohibits any amendment, alteration, revision or withdrawal of plans without the permission of the CoC. The CoC has the right to negotiate with the RA. The Tribunal found no error in the NCLT's order permitting the R-3 to submit the revised plan as authorised by the CoC.
Accordingly, the present appeal was dismissed.
Case Title: Orissa Metaliks Pvt. Ltd. Versus Avil Jerome Menezes, RP of Future Enterprises Ltd. & Ors.
Case Number:Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1022 of 2025
Judgment Date: 25/07/2025
For Appellant: Mr. Arun Kathpalia & Mr. Krishnendu Dutta, Sr. Advocates with Mr. Prateek Kumar, Ms. Raveena Rai, Mr. Siddhant Grover, Mr. Yajas Achal and Ms. Mehak Khurana, Advocates.
For Respondents : Mr. Abhinav Vasisth with Mr. Abhishek Swaroop, Advocates for R-2. Mr. Kunal Tandon, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Kunal Kanungo, Ms. Natasha, Advocates for R-3. Ms. Pooja Mahajan and Mr. Karanvir Khosla, Advocates for R-1.