Stressed Asset Resolve Consultants vs Singhal Strips Limited Through Its ...
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1093 of 2025
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Under Section 30(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, the Adjudicating Authority and the Appellate Tribunal have no jurisdiction to interfere with a Resolution Plan approved by the Committee of Creditors on the ground of its commercial wisdom, where the plan complies with Section 30(2); the commercial wisdom of the CoC in approving a plan cannot be interfered with unless the plan violates a statutory provision. The fact that a creditor whose claim was admitted under the category of other creditors receives no amount under the plan does not, by itself, constitute a violation of Section 30(2), and a plan cannot be faulted on that ground absent an allegation of breach of a statutory provision. Pending proceedings under Section 66 in a separate CP do not bear on the approval of a Resolution Plan in the present proceeding, and those proceedings are to be decided independently in accordance with law.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Stressed Asset Resolve Consultants ...Appellant Versus Singhal Strips Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents
Present: For Appellant : Mr. Harshit Agarwal, Advocate. For Respondents : Ms. Kshirja Agarwal, Advocate for R-3.
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
20.08.2025: Heard learned counsel for the Appellant and learned
counsel appearing for the Respondent No.3. This appeal has been filed
against order dated 30.04.2025 passed by the Adjudicating Authority
(National Company Law Tribunal), New Delhi Bench, Court-V by which order
the Adjudicating Authority has approved the Resolution Plan submitted by
Respondent No.3.
2. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that Appellant's claim was
admitted in the category of other creditors, however, in the Resolution Plan
no amount has been proposed. It is further submitted that the Resolution
Professional has filed application under Section 66 of the I&B Code, which is
still pending. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the Resolution
Professional in CP (IB) No.73/PB/2017 has assigned certain NRRI to the
Appellant, hence, outcome of Section 66 application may have consequences.
Cont'd.../
3. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties
and perused the record.
4. According to the Appellant's case, his claim was admitted under the
category of 'other creditors'. The mere fact that no amount has been proposed
to the Appellant cannot lead to violation of any provision of Section 30(2) of
the I&B Code. It is well settled that the commercial wisdom of the CoC in
approving the Resolution Plan cannot be interfered with unless plan violates
any statutory provision. In event, the Resolution Plan complies with Section
30(2), the Adjudicating Authority and this Appellate Tribunal has no
jurisdiction to interfere in the Resolution Plan. Present is not a case where
the Appellant has alleged any violation of the statutory provisions, hence, the
Resolution Plan cannot be faulted.
5. In so far as submission of learned counsel for the Appellant that there
are Section 66 proceedings, which are pending in other CP (IB)
No.73/PB/2017, the approval of the Resolution Plan in the present
proceeding has no bearing in the proceeding which are pending under Section
66 in the aforesaid case, which may be decided independently in accordance
with law. Subject to above, appeal is dismissed.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) Archana/nn
Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 335 & 971 of 2025 2 of 2
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free