Advertisement
Advertisement
Skip to content
Follow Us on
Advertisement
TOP STORIES
Corporate Law

CoC’s Approval of Resolution Plan Not Reviewable unless Statutory Violations Occur

Case Law Details

TaxGuru Citation
2025 taxguru.in 679
Case Name
Yogeshkumar Jashwantilal Thakkar Vs George Samuel (NCLAT Delhi)
Date of Judgement/Order
Only available for paid members
Courts
NCLAT
Advertisement

Yogeshkumar Jashwantilal Thakkar Vs George Samuel (NCLAT Delhi)

In the case of Yogeshkumar Jashwantilal Thakkar Vs. George Samuel, the NCLAT Delhi upheld the approval of a Resolution Plan in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) of Jason Dekor Private Limited. The appeal was filed by the suspended directors of the corporate debtor, challenging the order passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) Ahmedabad. The appellants contended that the Resolution Plan violated certain procedural requirements and that the resolution applicant failed to implement the plan, even seeking its recall. The primary issue was whether the Adjudicating Authority or Appellate Tribunal should intervene in the commercial decisions made by the Committee of Creditors (CoC).

The CIRP for Jason Dekor commenced on December 19, 2019, and initially, the CoC decided to seek liquidation due to the absence of a viable Resolution Plan. However, after a legal challenge and a revised Resolution Plan by the respondent, the CoC approved the plan with a 100% vote share. The appellant directors raised several objections, including non-compliance with Regulation 37(ba) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) regulations, failure to vote on an addendum to the plan, and issues with the valuation report.

The NCLAT rejected the appellants’ arguments. It emphasized that the commercial wisdom of the CoC, in approving the plan, should not be interfered with unless the plan violates Section 30(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in K. Sashidhar Vs. Indian Overseas Bank (2019) to support the view that the adjudicating authority cannot substitute its own commercial judgment for that of the CoC. The Tribunal also noted that the second addendum to the Resolution Plan, though not put to vote, was not required to be voted upon based on the meeting minutes. Furthermore, the valuation report had been shared with the CoC members, and no objections had been raised by them at that stage.

Paid content

Become a Basic or Premium Member, or log in if you are already a Basic or Premium member.

Advertisement

Author Info

CA Sandeep Kanoi
Qualification: CA in Job / Business
Company: Taxguru Consultancy
Location: Mumbai, Maharashtra
Articles Published: 19,764

Join TaxGuru's Network for the latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.