IBC Laws® | www.ibclaw.
in
(2025) ibclaw.in 225 NCLAT
IN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Principal Bench, New Delhi
Sagar Stone Industries
v.
Sajjan Kumar Dokania and Ors.
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 524 of 2025 with Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 525
of 2025
Decided on 28-Mar-25
Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson), Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) and Mr. Arun
Baroka (Technical Member)
Add. Info:
Corporate Debtor: Jabalpur MSW Pvt. Ltd.
For Respondent(s): Mr. Vinod Chaurasia, Advocate for RP.
Brief about the decision:
Mere fact that any written communication of rejection of Appellant’s plan was not sent shall
have no effect on the resolution passed by the CoC approving the Resolution Plan. Appellant’s
plan admittedly was considered as one of the Resolution Applicant and CoC has approved the
Plan of the SRA. The commercial wisdom of the CoC in approving the Resolution Plan cannot
be interfered with at the instance of the Appellant.(p6)
CIRP Regulation 39(1A) is a regulation which provides that Resolution Professional shall not
permit modification to resolution plan more than once, which regulation, however, does not
bind the CoC and the CoC has unfettered right to ask for revision of plan or negotiate with all
Resolution Applicants once or more. In so far as holding challenge mechanism, it is an
enabling mechanism for the CoC for value maximisation and not holding challenge mechanism
cannot be a ground on which approval of plan can be questioned.(p8)
Judgment/Order:
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
28.03.2025: These two appeals have been filed the Resolution Applicant challenging the order
passed by the Adjudicating Authority dated 21.02.2025 in I.A. No.4977/ND/2024 and I.A.
No.5769/ND/2024.
Print Date: May 28, 2025 Page 1 of 3 Printed for:
IBC Laws® | www.ibclaw.in
2. In the resolution process of the Corporate Debtor – Jabalpur MSW Pvt. Ltd. the resolution plans
were invited. Appellant was one of the Resolution Applicant and he submitted his plan. Ten
resolution plans including resolution plan of the Appellant and other Resolution Applicants were
considered by the CoC. On 11.06.2024, the CoC considered the plan of the Appellant and approved
the resolution plan of the Successful Resolution Applicant with 100% vote share. The Resolution
Professional filed an application being I.A. No.36/2024. Appellant has filed I.A. No.4977/ND/2024
and I.A. No.5769/ND/2024. By I.A. No.4977/ND/2024, Appellant prayed for rejection of the approval
of Resolution Plan and by I.A. No.5769/ND/2024, Appellant sought direction IBBI to initiate enquiry
against the Resolution Professional. Both the applications were heard and by the impugned order
has been rejected. The plan approval application – I.A. No.36/2024 is reserved for orders by the
Adjudicating Authority.
3. Learned counsel for the Appellant challenging the order contends that the Resolution Applicant
was never informed about the rejection of his plan and approval of plan of SRA. It is submitted that
the CoC extended the time for consideration of Resolution Plan and had not resorted to challenge
process.
4. Learned counsel for the Resolution Professional submits that the Appellant was communicated
about the decision on 15.06.2024 and was also informed about the email of the SRA. Learned
counsel for the Resolution Professional submits that Appellant has also congratulated the SRA via
email.
5. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. In so far as submission of the Appellant that he was never communicated about rejection of his
plan and decision to approve plan of SRA, the Resolution Professional has refuted the said
submission of the Appellant and submitted that Appellant was communicated telephonically. We are
of the view that the mere fact that any written communication of rejection of Appellant’s plan was
not sent shall have no effect on the resolution passed by the CoC approving the Resolution Plan.
Appellant’s plan admittedly was considered as one of the Resolution Applicant and CoC has
approved the Plan of the SRA. The commercial wisdom of the CoC in approving the Resolution Plan
cannot be interfered with at the instance of the Appellant.
7. Coming to the second submission advanced by the Appellant that CoC has revised the plan more
than once in violation of Regulation 39(1A) of the CIRP Regulations 2016 which provides that plan
cannot be permitted to be revised more than once. He further submits that challenge mechanism
was not resorted to while permitting revision of plan.
8. Regulation 39(1A) is a regulation which provides that Resolution Professional shall not permit
modification to resolution plan more than once, which regulation, however, does not bind the CoC
and the CoC has unfettered right to ask for revision of plan or negotiate with all Resolution
Applicants once or more. In so far as holding challenge mechanism, it is an enabling mechanism for
the CoC for value maximisation and not holding challenge mechanism cannot be a ground on which
approval of plan can be questioned.
10. We are of the view that the Adjudicating Authority has not erred in rejecting both the
applications. There is no merit in the appeals. Both Appeals are dismissed.
Print Date: May 28, 2025 Page 2 of 3 Printed for:
IBC Laws® | www.ibclaw.in
[Justice Ashok Bhushan]
Chairperson
[Barun Mitra]
Member (Technical)
[Arun Baroka]
Member (Technical)
Original judgment copy is available here.
----
–––
Disclaimer: While every effort is made to avoid any mistake or omission, this document including case-
summary/brief about the decision/ add. info/headnote/ judgment/order/ act/ rule/ regulation/ circular/
notification is being circulated on the condition and understanding that the publisher would not be liable
in any manner by reason of any mistake or omission or for any action taken or omitted to be taken or
advice rendered or accepted on the basis of this document. The authenticity of this text must be verified
from the original source. Read more here.
Print Date: May 28, 2025 Page 3 of 3 Printed for:
