Pointing out the ambiguities or lack of specific details or data, post acceptance of the Resolution Plan by the Committee of Creditors(CoC), should be rejected, except in an egregious case were data and facts are fudged or concealed | Not allow or permit the Resolution Applicant to unilaterally amend/modify, or withdraw the Resolution Plan post approval by CoC | Rplan approved by CoC is a creature of the Code and not a pure contract between two consenting parties – Deccan Value Investors L.P. and Anr. Vs. Dinkar Venkatasubramanian and Anr. – Supreme Court
In this important judgment, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that:
(i) Resolution plans are not prepared and submitted by lay persons.
(ii) The assumption is that the resolution applicant would submit the revival/resolution plan specifying the monetary amount and other obligations, after in-depth analysis of the fiscal and commercial viability of the corporate debtor.
(iii) Pointing out the ambiguities or lack of specific details or data, post acceptance of the resolution plan by the Committee of Creditors, should be rejected, except in an egregious case were data and facts are fudged or concealed.
(iv) The resolution applicant cannot withdraw or modify the resolution plan, after the same is approved by the Committee of Creditors.
(v) The resolution plan approved by the Committee of Creditors is a creature of the Code and not a pure contract between two consenting parties.
(vi) It does not allow or permit the resolution applicant to unilaterally amend/modify, or withdraw the resolution plan post approval by the Committee of Creditors.
(vii) Information memorandum is not to be tested applying “the true picture of risk” obligation, albeit as observed by the NCLAT the resolution professional’s obligation to provide information has to be understood on “best effort” basis.
