Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(NCLAT) 458
NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Govindrao Sable, J
Consortium of Govindrao Sable, Shobha G. Sable and Pravin G. Sable – Appellant
Versus
Pankaj Sham Joshi & Ors. – Respondent
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1598 – 1600 of 2025
For the Respondents:Mr. Abhijeet Sinha, Sr. Advocate, Mr.Abhijeet Sinha, Mr. Gautam Swarup, Ms. Gayatri Mohite, Mr. Dhrupad Vaghani, Mr. Rudra Deosthli and Ms. Kamakshi Maini, Advocates for R-3, Ms. Heena Kochar, Advocate, Mr. Kunal Mehta, Advocate for CoC, Ms. Madhavi Dosi, Advocates for RP.
The non-communication of individual scores does not invalidate a resolution plan evaluation process when the appellant was aware of the established criteria and actively participated.
Headnote:Statute Analysis: This judgment pertains to the evaluation process under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code; relevant provisions outline resolution plan evaluation. Facts of the Case: The appellant contested the approval of a resolution plan by alleging failure to receive individual scores affecting the ability to adjust their proposal.
Findings of Court:
The court affirmed the process followed, resting on the evaluation matrix known to all applicants.
Issues: The court framed the issue of whether the non-communication of scores undermined the resolution process.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that the appellant was aware of evaluation criteria and participated actively, invalidating claims of procedural unfairness.
Result: The appeal is dismissed as lacking merit.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details of appeal against nclt decision. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. arguments on individual score communication. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. affirmation of process compliance and appellant's awareness. (Para 10) |
| 4. final verdict of dismissal. (Para 11) |
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
21.11.2025 : Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
2. This appeal has been filed against an order dated 01.10.2025 passed by the adjudicating authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench – I) by which I.A. (IBC) Plan No. 81/2025 submitted by the Resolution Professional (RP) for approval of the plan has been allowed. Appellant, Unsuccessful Resolution Applicant aggrieved by the order has come up in this appeal, challenging the order dated 01.10.2025.
3. Learned Sr. counsel Mr. P. Nagesh appearing for the appellant submits that appellant was not communicated the individual scores and their individual ranking of the applicant as required by Step IV under the Resolution Plan Evaluation Process. He submits that although the appellant was communicated the NPV value but other scores as mentioned in Clause 1.1(e) has not been communicated which has prejudiced the appellant in not appropriately revising its plan to match with the SRA.
4. The adjudicating authority in the impugned order has noted the brief background of steps, the fact that all resolution applicant including the appellant were permitted to file their resolution plan and after submission of the resolution plan the resolution applicant were intimating about the negotiation process which was to be held and revised process note was also shared on 07.03.2025.
5. After sharing the revised process note, negotiation process commenced on 12.03.2025 and after 27 round of bidding it concluded on 18.03.2025. The appellant was given opportunity to participate in the negotiation process and the appellant was highest bidder having NPV of Rs. 170 crore on 24th round which has been captured, by adjudicating authority in paragraph 22 of the impugned order. After 42nd CoC Meeting held on 07.05.2025, all resolution plans received were held to be compliant and addendum were asked to submit by all the resolution applicants who submitted the plan and plans were put to vote between 10.06.2025 & 16.06.2025 and in 43rd Meeting of the CoC on basis of e-voting the result, the respondent SRA Grainotch Industries Limited was held to be successful resolution applicant, approved with 99.86% vote shares.
6. The application was filed by the RP for approval of the plan. In the application, all steps taken with all compliances reflected in ‘Form-H’ were part of the record. The adjudicating authority heard the parties and by the impugned order after returning the finding that the process note was duly followed and complied with have approved the resolution plan.
7. The submission which has been much pressed by learned Sr. counsel Mr. P. Nagesh that appellant was not intimated the individual score and their individual ranking as provided in Step IV. He has referred to Clause 1(e) of Part IV of Resolution Plan Evaluation Process, which is as follows:
“1. Resolution Plan Evaluation Process e. Step IV: Negotiations by CoC with prospective Resolution Applicant(s) having the [Top 3] (Three) Highest Evaluated Compliant Resolution Plan. Top Three Resolutions Highest Evaluated Complaint Resolution Plan will be communicated their individual scores and their individual ranking only. Resolution Applicant(s) will not be communicated scores of other Resolution Applicant(s).”
8. It is not disputed that NPV of the appellant was disclosed and he was well aware of the NPV. The evaluation matrix on basis of which the scoring with regard to all the plans will be done was already notified and each resolution applicants were well aware of the matrix for scoring. The fact that NPV has only 24 marks and upfront payment has 56 marks was a fact well known. The appellant’s resolution plan provided f
