2026 Supreme(Online)(NCLT) 3132

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL
AYYAPPAN NAIR RAGHAVAN PILLAI – Appellant
Versus
COMMITTEE OF CREDITORS OF ATTUKAL DEVI INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES LIMITED – Respondent
IA(I.B.C) - 379/2025

The commercial wisdom of the Committee of Creditors in approving a resolution plan is paramount and cannot be judicially substituted; the evaluation matrix is merely a guide and does not give the highest-scoring plan a vested right to approval.

Headnote:(A) Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Section 60(5) - Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process - Challenge to approval of Resolution Plan by Committee of Creditors - Scope of judicial review - Limited to examining statutory compliance and procedural fairness - Commercial wisdom of Committee of Creditors is paramount and cannot be substituted. (Paras 59, 66-68)

(B) Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Evaluation Matrix - Not a determinative or binding tool - Does not confer a vested or enforceable right upon the highest-scoring Resolution Applicant to demand approval of its Resolution Plan - Committee of Creditors is entitled to consider broader commercial factors. (Paras 61-62)

(C) Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Unsuccessful Resolution Applicant - Locus standi - An unsuccessful Resolution Applicant has the locus to challenge procedurally defective actions of the Committee of Creditors, but cannot challenge the commercial wisdom of the Committee of Creditors in the absence of any material irregularity, illegality, or statutory violation. (Paras 53, 60, 69)

(D) Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Commercial Wisdom - While the commercial wisdom of the Committee of Creditors is paramount, it is not completely immune from judicial scrutiny in cases involving statutory non-compliance or legal infirmity. (Para 66)

Facts of the case:
The Applicant, an admitted Financial Creditor and former director/shareholder of the Corporate Debtor, submitted a Resolution Plan (Plan A) during the CIRP. The Evaluation Matrix ranked the Applicant's plan first and the plan of the Successful Resolution Applicant (Plan B) second. Despite this ranking, the Committee of Creditors (CoC), comprising a single Financial Creditor with 100% voting share, approved Plan B. The Applicant challenged this decision, alleging arbitrariness, discrimination, malafides, and procedural irregularities, including that the Successful Resolution Applicant was permitted to revise his plan post-submission and that the CoC relied on irrelevant considerations like a "proven track record." The Applicant sought to set aside the approval of Plan B and to direct approval of his own Plan A. (Paras 1-17)

Findings of Court:
The court held that the CoC's decision to approve Plan B with 100% voting share did not suffer from any material irregularity, illegality, or arbitrariness. The court noted that the Evaluation Matrix is only a guiding tool and does not give the highest scorer a vested right to approval. The CoC is free to exercise its commercial wisdom based on broader factors like feasibility, viability, implementation capability, and long-term sustainability. The court found that the Applicant failed to establish any procedural impropriety or discriminatory treatment, as opportunities for clarification were extended to him as well. The court dismissed the application, emphasizing the limited scope of judicial review and warning against attempts by unsuccessful bidders to relitigate commercial decisions. (Paras 57-72)

Issues: The main issue was whether the approval of the second-ranked Resolution Plan by the CoC, despite the Applicant's plan securing the highest score under the Evaluation Matrix, suffered from any material irregularity, illegality, or arbitrariness warranting interference by the Adjudicating Authority under Section 60(5) of the IBC.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's reasoning was based on the settled legal principle that the commercial wisdom of the Committee of Creditors is paramount and cannot be interfered with by the Adjudicating Authority unless there is a clear violation of the statutory provisions of the IBC or a material irregularity in the process. The Evaluation Matrix is merely an aid for the CoC's decision-making and does not create a binding obligation to select the highest-scoring plan. A Resolution Applicant has no vested right to have its plan approved. (Paras 60-68)

Result: IA(IBC)/379/KOB/2025 IN CP(IBC)/22/KOB/2024 stands dismissed. (Para 72)

Table of Content
1. what are the facts and allegations of the case concerning the approval of the resolution plan? (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
2. what are the arguments of the respondents and the legal submissions of both parties? (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56)
3. what are the court's observations and the legal principles applied to the case? (Para 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71)
4. what is the final conclusion and order of the court? (Para 72 , 73 , 74 , 75)

IA(IBC)/379/KOB/2025 IN CP(IBC)/22/KOB/2024 (under Section 60 (5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016, r/w Rule 11 & 32 of the NCLT rules 2016)

Date of Institution: 01.10.2025 Order Delivered on: 25.05.2026 In the matter of:

M/s. Attukal Devi Institute of Medical Sciences Limited Memo of Parties Dr. Ayyappan Nair Raghavan Pillai, Having Residential Address at: T.C 6/773-1, Pranavam, Akkulam Road, Medical College P.O Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala- 695011.

…Applicant Vs.

Committee of Creditors of Attukal Devi Institute of Medical Sciences Limited Represented through, Managing Director, Dhanlaxmi Malson Tower, MANACAUD, ThiruvanantBhaapnuk raLmim-6it9e5d0, 09Т .С. 41/2343(4)

…Respondent No.1 Rajmohan R.

Resolution Professional and Insolvency Professional residing at Rajbhavan, HS street, Ollukkara P.O., Krishnapuram Temple, T51h4ri/s1su2r/,1 K earanlda - 618705 A6,5 5K. rishnapuram, 6th …Respondent No.2 IA(IBC)/ /KOB/2025 CP(IBC)/22/KOB/2024 Attukal Devi Institute of Medical Sciences Limited Represented by its Resolution Professional.

Having its registered office Attukal Manacaud P.O, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala, India, 695009. T.C 22/935 (2 to 5), …Respondent No.3 Dr. M Ayyappan Thamarakkulam Lane, Sasthamangalam, TTChi ruvanan9th/a2p0u8r9a(m1)-, 695010 Sreeprasadam, …Additional Respondent No.4 Coram:

HON’BLE MEMBER (JUDICIAL) : SHRI. VINAY GOEL Appearance:

For the Applicant : Mr. Biju P Pulipra, Advocate For the Respondent No.1 : Mr. Vinod PV, Advocate : Mr. A C Venugopal, Advocate Mr. Rajmohan R, RP For the Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 For the Respondent : Mr. Mohan Pulickkal, Advocate No.4

O R D E R

1.

The present Application has been filed under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency -

and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, read with Rule 11 of the National Company Law Tribunal aR)u Sleest ,a 2si0d1e 6th, eb ayp tphreov Aalp opfl tichae n2tn,d s eraenkkiendg R tehseol ufotilolon wPlianng s rueblmieitftse:d by Dr. M. Ayyappan (Plan B), as approved by the 1st Respondent (CoC) in the 16th CoC meeting, being arbitrary, discriminatory, mala fide, and violative of the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and the CIRP Regulations;

IA(IBC)/ /KOB/2025 CP(IBC)/22/KOB/2024 b) Hold and declare that the evaluation and approval process adopted by the 1st Respondent is vitiated by material irregularities, bias and non-compliance of the statutory provisions, and is therefore null and void;

c) Direct the 1st Respondent to consider and approve the Resolution Plan submitted by the Applicant (Plan A), which was ranked 1st under the Evaluation Matrix and is fully compliant with the provisions of the Code, ensures equitable treatment of all stakeholders, and upholds the objective of maximisation of value of assets;

d) Pass such other or further orders or directions as this Hon'ble Adjudicating Authority may deem fit, proper and just, in the interest of justice, equity, and fairness.

The Applicant, Dr. Ayyappan Nair Raghavan Pillai, is an admitted Financial Creditor and former director and shareholder of Attukal Devi Institute of

2.

and had also initiated the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against Medical Sciences Limited (hereinafter referred to as “the Corporate Debtor”)

Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, the Applicant participated as a Prospective the Cor

Click Here to Read the rest of this document