CoC's commercial wisdom in ranking resolution plans, negotiating with top bidders per RFRP, and rejecting others is non-justiciable absent proven material irregularity or statutory violation.

O R D E R

1. This is an Application under Section 60(5) of the IBC, 2016 r.w. Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules, 2016, with the following prayers:

i. To list, hear and dispose the instant application in priority to the application for approval of resolution plan of Maa Annapurna Agritech Pvt. Ltd. in consortium with Mrs. Manorama Devi Jhawar, filed by the Resolution Professional;

ii. To the dismiss the application for approval of resolution plan of Maa Annapurna Agritech Pvt. Ltd. in consortium with Mrs. Manorama Devi Jhawar, filed by the Resolution Professional;

iii. To declare that the Respondent Nos. 3 & 4 are not eligible under Section 29A of the Code, to submit the Resolution Plan in Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process of the instant Corporate Debtor;

iv. To direct the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 to provide an opportunity to all the Resolution Applicants (including the Applicant and excluding the Respondent Nos. 3 & 4) who submitted their resolution plans in response to the Request for Resolution Plan to submit their revised resolution plans with the Resolution Professional within a reasonable period of time from the date of the order as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit;

v. To direct the Respondent Nos. 3 & 4 to convene the meeting of Committee of Creditors and place the revised Resolution Plans to be submitted by all the Resolution Applicants (including the Applicant i.e. M/s. Bio Treasure Overseas) for voting and vote on the latest plans submitted by all the Resolution Applicants within a reasonable period of time as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit.

2. The Applicant's case in brief:

a. The Applicant submits that the present application has been seeking to place on record the material irregularity, illegality and arbitrariness committed by the Resolution Professional (“RP”) and the Committee of Creditors (“CoC”) of the Corporate Debtor, and further seeking rejection of the application for approval of the Resolution Plan submitted by Respondent Nos. 3 and 4, along with a direction to conduct a fresh voting process on all eligible Resolution Plans.

b. The Applicant submits that it was duly recognized as an “eligible” Resolution Applicant in the final list dated 10.11.2020 and had submitted its Resolution Plan pursuant to the RFRP dated 21.11.2020. The Applicant submits that Respondent No. 1 is the RP and Respondent No. 2 constitutes the sole member of the CoC, while Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 form a consortium whose plan has been approved, despite their close connection with the promoters and suspended management of the Corporate Debtor, as evident from the Information Memorandum.

c. The Applicant submits that it duly submitted its Resolution Plan on 28.11.2020 and thereafter, upon being invited by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, presented the plan on 09.12.2020, pursuant to which certain modifications were sought and subsequently incorporated. The Applicant submits that vide email dated 10.12.2020, the RP required submission of revised plans by 18.12.2020, clarifying that in absence of further revisions, the submitted plan would be treated as final for voting. The Applicant submits that it complied and submitted the modified plan on 18.12.2020, and further participated in meetings conducted on 20.01.2021 at the instance of the RP and CoC, where additional clarifications and modifications were sought, which were again complied with by submitting a revised plan on 02.02.2021.

d. The Applicant submits that thereafter, despite repeated follow-ups, no communication was received from the RP for approximately six months, until 04.08.2021, when the Applicant was informed that the CoC had already decided to proceed with liquidation and th