Resolution plan for Thwink Big Content Pvt. Ltd. submitted by Micro Capitals Pvt. Ltd. stands approved

By POONAM GANDHI Corporate Law Judiciary October 10, 2025

TaxGuru Citation: 2025 taxguru.in 9079
Case Name: In re Truee IPE (P) LLP (NCLT Mumbai)
Appeal Number: Only available for paid members
Date of Judgement/Order: Only available for paid members
Courts: NCLT

Already Upgraded? Log in.

In re Truee IPE (P) LLP (NCLT Mumbai)

NCLT Mumbai held that resolution plan for M/s. Thwink Big Content Private Limited [Corporate Debtor] as submitted by M/s. Micro Capitals Private Limited meeting the requirements of Section 30(2) of the Code and Regulations 37, 38, 38 (1A) and 39 (4) of the Regulations is approved.

Facts- The present Application is filed by Resolution Professional Truue IPE LLP (Applicant/Resolution Professional) u/s. 30 (6) read with section 31 (1) of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 read with Regulation 39(4) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India Regulations, 2016 for seeking approval of the Resolution Plan dated 10^th January 2025 for M/s. Thwink Big Content Private Limited (Corporate Debtor) submitted by M/s. Micro Capitals Private Limited (Resolution Applicant) which was approved by the members of the Committee of Creditors (CoC) within the e-voting period stipulated from 07^th March 2025 to 14^th March 2025. Hence, the current application is filed before this Tribunal for appropriate orders as it deems fit.

Conclusion- In K Sashidhar v. Indian Overseas Bank & Others (in Civil Appeal No.10673/2018 decided on 05.02.2019) the Hon’ble Apex Court held that if the CoC had approved the Resolution Plan by requisite percent of voting share, then as per section 30(6) of the Code, it is imperative for the Resolution Professional to submit the same to the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT). On receipt of such a proposal, the Adjudicating Authority is required to satisfy itself that the Resolution Plan as approved by CoC meets the requirements specified in Section 30(2). The Hon’ble Apex Court further observed that the role of the NCLT is ‘no more and no less’. The Hon’ble Apex Court further held that the discretion of the Adjudicating Authority is circumscribed by Section 31 and is limited to scrutiny of the Resolution Plan “as approved” by the requisite percent of voting share of financial creditors. Even in that enquiry, the grounds on which the Adjudicating Authority can reject the Resolution Plan is in reference to matters specified in Section 30(2) when the Resolution Plan does not conform to the stated requirements.