Sr.No.

Judgment Relevant Portion Relevant

Paras

1. Amit Bharana v. Gian Facts: Appeal regarding the application filed 23,27, 33
Chand Narang. by Resolution Professional for liquidation of
And the Corporate Debtor Apex Buildings Private
Nitin Sharma and Others v. Ltd. since the liquidation was approved by
Gian Chand Narang. CoC with 87.30% voting shares the appellant
(2021 SCC Online NCLAT has filed the appeal on the ground that the
1) liquidation is invalid according to the code.
Held: The Resolution for liquidation was
voted with the voting share of 87.30% above
the mark of 66%. Since the CoC took the
decision with required to vote share and
approved Resolution of Liquidation of the
Corporate Debtor. Therefore, this decision is
adjudicating. Hence both the appeals got
dismissed.
The CoC was empowered to decide to
liquidate the Corporate Debtor at any time
before confirmation of the Resolution Plan,
including any time before the preparation of
Information Memorandum.

2. K.N. Rajakumar v. Facts: Appeal as the Adjudicating Authority 20, 23,

Nagarajan and Others should directed the Resolution Professional 26
(2021 SCC OnLine SC 732) to call for a meeting of CoC constituting of
members who originally constituted the CoC
during the year 2017, soon after the order of
admission of CIRP of the Corporate Debtor,
without taking into account the present status
 of the Financial and Operational Creditors
and claims filed to that extent.
Held: It was held that the corporate debtor
has already settled the issue with the
financial creditors, who have resolved to
withdraw the CIRP proceedings and by
virtue of withdrawal of CIRP proceedings,
the Corporate Debtor now is a going
concern. After the CIRP proceedings the
power was handed over to the Directors of
the Corporate Debtor and from that date RP
and CoC in relation to the Corporate Debtor
had become functus officio (having
performed his office). Therefore the appeal
regarding the order of CIRP is hence
dismissed.

3. Kridhan Infrastructure Pvt. Facts: Techpro System Ltd. was under the 6,11
Ltd. v. Venkatesan process of liquidation. The resolution plan
Sankaranarayan and others. was approved by the committee with 89.92%
( (2021) 6 Supreme Court votes, but the appellant did not fulfill the
Cases 94). remaining of the procedure. Again after 6
months the CoC voted with the majority of
99.28% for the implementation of corporate
debtor but it was not implemented as the
order was of over 8 months old and hence
got declined. So the appellant filed the suit
to accept the corporate debtor as active
 company and the change the status from
“under liquidation” to “active”.
Held: The court held that at the present stage
the company is under liquidation. There were
many opportunities with the appellant even
then he is not able to comply with the terms
and condition of the resolution plan. As a
result the management shall revert back to
the liquidator and the court advised the
liquidator to proceed with the liquidation
with proper steps with accordance to law.
Hence the suit was dismissed by the court.

4. K. Sashidhar v. Facts: Appeal of requesting the tribunal to 32, 46,

Indian Overseas Bank & Or approve the resolution plan by discarding the 55, 57,
s voting share of financial institutions who did 62.
not participate in voting, though the NCLT
approved the previous resolution plan which
was not above the mark of the desired
margin of CoC. So the appeal to the NCLAT
was filed regarding the matter. Another
appeal regarding the rejection by financial
institutions of the resolution plan which was
aiding in the plan of action.
Held: The court held that according to Sec 30
of I&B code states that the decision is taken
collectively after due negotiations
between the financial creditors who are the
members of CoC and they express their
opinion in form of their voting rights. NCLT
has already submitted that the plan has not
 been approved by the proper percentage of
votes of the financial creditors. Therefore,
the Court had settled and recognised the
dominion of the judicial and the appellate
authority in insolvency matters. However, if
the rejected resolution plan is falling within
the grounds mentioned in section 30(2) of the
code and include any decision on the
applicability of the resolution applicant of
the case, it would be subject to judicial
review. Hence the court dismissed the
appeal.

5. Jaypee Kensington Facts: Various appeals were filed to 165, 178,

Boulevard Apartments challenge the Resolution Plan which was 196,548-
Welfare Association and passed with 97.36% of votes and to 556.
Others v. NBCC (India) Ltd. challenge the power and jurisdiction of the
and Others. Adjudicating Authority while dealing with
the resolution plan approved by the CoC and
whether the appellate authority was justified
in providing for an Interim Monitoring
Committee for implementation of the
resolution plan.
Held: The court did not approve the
Resolution Plan submitted by NBCC and
gave further 45 days to complete the process.
The court also clarified that- “It is made clear
that the IRP shall not entertain any
 expression of interest by any other person
nor shall be required to issue any new
information memorandum.”
It was also held that there is no scope for
Adjudicating Authorities to interfere with the
commercial decision of the CoC. The
Adjudicating Authority does not have the
power to modify the resolution plan which
has been approved by the CoC. If, within its
limited jurisdiction, the Adjudicating
Authority finds any shortcoming in the
resolution plan, it would only send the
resolution plan back to the Committee of
Creditors, for re-submission,
6. India Resurgence ARC Facts: The resolution plan passed was 11,16,18,
Private Limited v. Amit approved by the CoC with 95.35% votes. 19
Metaliks Limited and The resolution professional applied for
Another approval of the resolution plan and the
adjudicating authority approved the same.
The main ground to challenge is that the
valuation of the security interest held by
appellant in its resolution plan was
approximately Rs. 12 crores which was not
considered. Thus the approved resolution
plan failed to regard the interests of all the
stakeholders including the appellant. It was
contented that sec. 30(4) of the code is
overlooked in the following case.
Held: Through the judgement the court
reiterated the importance of commercial
wisdom of the CoC and limited the scope of
 judicial interference in such business decisions.
The court clarified the position of value of
security interest claims of other stakeholders, the
Court not only underscored the flexibility
afforded to the CoC under section 30(4) but also
emphasized the principle of equal treatment of
equally placed creditors. Preferential treatment
on the basis of value of security interest would
ultimately lead to financial creditors opting to
stand in dissent, thus favoring liquidation and
defeating the purpose of the Code which aims for
insolvency resolution and not the death of the
corporate debtor. Hence the court rejected the
appeal.
.
7. Rajputana Properties Pvt. Facts: The appeal was regarding the 27,31,60,
Ltd. v. Ultratech Cement grievance that adjudicating authority should 69
Ltd. & Ors. (Other 4 have passed positive direction and allowed
appeals). the appellant to meet the bidders or financial
creditors or other stakeholders from time to
time and also adjudicating authority decline
the plea of the appellant that he will pay the
financial creditors and the resolution plan
must be closed. The appeal was also
regarding the rejection of the resolution plan
by the NCLT on discrimination of the
creditors.
Held: It was pointed out that the resolution
professional and the Committee of creditor
are duty bound to ensure the maximization of
value within the time frame prescribed under
the Code and observed that the object in
ascertaining a resolution applicant who can
offer maximum amount so as to safeguard
the interest of all stakeholders of the
corporate debtor is lacking from the
Committee of creditors.
If the Adjudicating Authority is satisfied that
the resolution plan as approved by the
committee of creditors under section 30(4)
meets the requirements as referred to in sub-
section (2) of section 30, it shall by order
approve the resolution plan which shall be
binding on the corporate debtor and its
employees, members, creditors, guarantors
and other stakeholders involved in the
resolution plan.
Provided that the Adjudicating Authority
shall, before passing an order for approval of
resolution plan under this sub-section, satisfy
that the resolution plan has provisions for its
effective implementation.
The adjudicating authority has rightly given
the judgement and the special petition was
also disposed of as it was evident from the
statistics that Ultratech private limited has
given better terms to maximize the asset and
to give resolution. Through which all the
objectives of Insolvency and bankruptcy
code was fulfilled. But appellant has passed
their resolution plan given by other creditors.
.