Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Vijay Narayan, Sr. Adv. Mr. T. Ravichandran, Adv. Mr. K. V. Mohan, AOR Mr. K.V. Balkrishnan, Adv. Mr. Rahul Kumar Sharma, Adv. Mr. Devashish Bharuka, AOR Mrs. Jaya Bharuka, Adv. Mr. Ravi Bharuka, Adv. Ms. Sarvshree, Adv. Mr. Justine George, Adv. Mr. Shobhit Dwivedi, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mrs. Haripriya Padmanabhan, Adv. Mr. Kuriakose Varghese, Adv. Mr. V. Shyamohan, Adv. Mr. Akshat Gogna, Adv. Mr. Martin Geomin George, Adv. M/S. Kmnp Law, AOR Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, AOR Mr. Sanjay Kapur, AOR Ms. Megha Karnwal, Adv. Mr. Surya Prakash, Adv. Mrs. Shubhra Kapur, Adv. Mr. Arjun Bhatia, Adv. Mr. Devesh Dubey, Adv. Ms. Mahima Kapur, Adv. Mr. Lalit Rajput, Adv. Mr. Goutham Shivshankar, AOR Mrs. Pragya Baghel, AOR Mr. K. V. Mohan, AOR Mr. Dheeraj Nair, AOR Ms. Vishrutyi Sahni, Adv.

What is the effect of Section 164(2)(b) of the Companies Act on eligibility to submit a resolution plan under Section 29A(e) of the IBC? What is the impact of Section 88 of the Trusts Act on a resolution applicant's eligibility when acting as alter ego of an ineligible trust? What are the requirements for presenting a revised resolution plan to the CoC after conditional approval?

Key Points: - Supreme Court partially upholds NCLAT's rejection of the resolution plan due to resolution applicant's ineligibility under Section 88 of Trusts Act and Section 166(4) of Companies Act, and failure to place revised plan before CoC (!) (!) (!) . - Valuation process complied with Regulations 27 and 35 of CIRP Regulations as CoC was provided fair and liquidation values after confidentiality undertakings (!) (!) . - Non-publication of Form G on designated website was a directory requirement with no proven prejudice, not vitiating the CIRP (!) (!) . - Resolution applicant ineligible under Section 88 Trusts Act for relying on credentials of ineligible trust "Sri Balaji Vidyapeeth" while submitting individual plan (!) (!) (!) . - Revised resolution plan after ninth CoC meeting not placed before CoC for final approval, rendering it void as per Sections 30 and 31 of IBC (!) (!) . - No mandate under IBC for parity payment to related parties in resolution plans; differential treatment upheld as per CoC's commercial wisdom (!) (!) . - Settlement proposals of promoter under Section 12-A properly considered and rejected by CoC earlier; fresh proposal after new EOIs left open for NCLT (!) (!) . - Increase in RP fees not linked to procedural irregularities; NCLAT's observations thereon set aside (!) . - CoC's commercial wisdom paramount but presupposes full information and final plan approval (!) (!) .

What is the effect of Section 164(2)(b) of the Companies Act on eligibility to submit a resolution plan under Section 29A(e) of the IBC?

What is the impact of Section 88 of the Trusts Act on a resolution applicant's eligibility when acting as alter ego of an ineligible trust?

What are the requirements for presenting a revised resolution plan to the CoC after conditional approval?