An approved Resolution Plan under the IBC is binding on all stakeholders; the Adjudicating Authority cannot allow modifications or withdrawals after submission, except via Section 12A and Regulation 30A, to prevent unregulated negotiations and maintain statutory timelines.

Headnote:The matter involves the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. It examines whether a Resolution Plan, once approved by the Adjudicating Authority, can be modified or if belated claims can be entertained. The court finds that such plans are binding on all stakeholders (Para 10). The issue is whether the Adjudicating Authority can exercise residual powers to allow withdrawals or modifications of a Resolution Plan after submission. The ratio is that such actions would create unregulated negotiations and negatively impact the statutory timelines of the corporate insolvency resolution process (Para 11).

Table of Content
1. binding nature and non-modifiability of approved resolution plans. (Para 10 , 11)

10. The judgment in the case of the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in RPS Infrastructure Ltd. v. Mukul Kumar & Anr. (Civil Appeal No. 5590 of 2021) has clearly laid down that a Resolution Plan approved by the Adjudicating Authority is binding on the Corporate Debtor, creditors, guarantors, and other stakeholders involved in the Resolution Plan. No claims should be made against the SRA in a belated manner. It is further noted that Parliament has not expressed any provision allowing for modifications or amendments to the Resolution Plan after CoC approval.

11. In a nutshell, in the matter of EBIX Singapore Private Limited vs Committee of Creditors of Educomp Solutions Ltd & Anr. Civil Appeal 3224 of 2020, the Hon’ble Apex Court has in para 202 of this order held as under: -

“202. The residual powers of the Adjudicating Authority under the IBC cannot be exercised to create procedural remedies which have substantive outcomes on the process of insolvency. The framework, as it stands, only enables withdrawals from the CIRP process by following the procedure detailed in Section 12A of the IBC and Regulation 30A of the CIRP Regulations and in the situations recognized in those provisions. Enabling withdrawals or modifications of the Resolution Plan at the behest of the successful Resolution Applicant, once it has been submitted to the Adjudicating Authority after due compliance with the procedural requirements and timelines, would create another tier of negotiations which will be wholly unregulated by the statute. Since the 330 days outer limit of the CIRP under Section 12(3) of the IBC, including judicial proceedings, can be extended only in exceptional circumstances, this open-ended process for further negotiations or a withdrawal, would have a deleterious impact on

Click Here to Read the rest of this document