#Committee of Creditors

The Supreme Court ruled that contractual rights over nominee directors, budget approvals, and project revenues constitute 'participation in policy-making' under IBC Section 5(24)(m)(i), a lower threshold than Section 29A control, rendering debenture holders and trustees related parties ineligible for the CoC. A post-CIRP assignment to bypass this bar was held mala fide.

The Supreme Court held that CoC approval of a resolution plan under IBC creates a binding obligation that cannot be withdrawn, even if the corporate debtor's financial position improves. The Court directed the NCLT to expeditiously decide on plan confirmation and competing OTS applications, reinforcing finality of CoC approval and protecting successful resolution applicants.

NCLAT Chennai held that the Committee of Creditors may replace a Resolution Professional under Section 22 of the IBC provided the replacement is not contrary to the Code, expunging adverse findings against the former RP and remitting his fee claim to the NCLT for adjudication.

The NCLAT affirmed the NCLT’s liquidation order, holding that the Committee of Creditors’ commercial wisdom cannot be judicially reviewed. Consequently, a rejected resolution plan automatically leads to winding-up, affecting all parties in IBC insolvency cases.

NCLAT Chennai upholds liquidation under Section 33(1)(a) of the IBC, ruling that repeated failure to honor settlement proposals and non-cooperation with the Committee of Creditors (CoC) justifies bypassing resolution efforts. The judgment reinforces that liquidation is a last resort but becomes binding when promoters undermine the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP).

NCLAT rules that an Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) is entitled only to proportional fees for duties performed during a stay on Committee of Creditors (CoC) constitution, rejecting claims for full statutory remuneration. The ruling clarifies that fee entitlement under IBC is contingent on actual functions discharged, not mere appointment duration.

NCLAT rules that resolution applicants excluded from Form G’s final list cannot participate in CIRP, even if their delayed EOI is condoned, unless the Committee of Creditors issues a fresh invitation. The decision underscores the IBC’s zero-tolerance approach to procedural lapses, impacting distressed asset resolution timelines and stakeholder rights.

NCLAT reinforces the primacy of the Committee of Creditors' commercial wisdom under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, holding that the Adjudicating Authority cannot remand a resolution plan unless statutory grounds under Sections 30(2) or 31 are violated. The ruling clarifies the limited scope of judicial review over CoC-approved plans, impacting insolvency practitioners and creditors.

NCLAT reinforces that dissenting financial creditors under Section 30(2)(b) of the IBC must receive at least the liquidation value approved by the Committee of Creditors (CoC). The ruling underscores the statutory minimum payout floor, ensuring dissenters are not shortchanged in resolution plans, even if the CoC's commercial wisdom prevails.

NCLAT rules that the Committee of Creditors (CoC) cannot proceed with voting on a resolution plan if a creditor's claim dispute remains unresolved. This ensures procedural fairness and protects creditor rights under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, preventing prejudice to disputing creditors.

NCLAT rules that a promoter's restructuring proposal cannot be treated as a valid Resolution Plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code unless it complies with Section 30(2) and the formal Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process. The ruling reinforces that informal settlements bypassing statutory safeguards are inadmissible, impacting creditors' rights and insolvency proceedings.

Supreme Court affirms that Committee of Creditors' commercial decisions in IBC resolution plans are immune from judicial review unless statutory violations exist.