Supreme Court ने CoC‑स्वीकृत IBC समाधान योजना को मान्य किया – SRA के लिए पोस्ट‑स्वीकृति वार्तालाप नहीं

<h3>Overview</h3> <p>The <span class="key-term" data-definition="Supreme Court of India — the highest judicial authority in the country, whose judgments shape the interpretation of statutes (GS2: Polity)">Supreme Court</span> has ruled that a <span class="key-term" data-definition="Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA) — the entity whose bid is accepted by the Committee of Creditors to implement the resolution plan (GS3: Economy)">Successful Resolution Applicant</span> (SRA) cannot back out of a plan after the <span class="key-term" data-definition="Committee of Creditors (CoC) — a body of financial creditors that decides the fate of an insolvent company, including approval of resolution plans (GS3: Economy)">Committee of Creditors</span> (CoC) has approved it. The judgment reinforces the binding nature of plans under the <span class="key-term" data-definition="Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) — the primary legislation governing corporate insolvency and bankruptcy in India, aimed at timely resolution of distressed firms (GS3: Economy)">Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code</span> (IBC)."</p> <h3>Key Developments</h3> <ul> <li>The bench of <strong>Justice K.V. Viswanathan</strong> and <strong>Justice Vipul M. Pancholi</strong> declined to interfere with the findings of the <strong>National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT)</strong> and <strong>National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT)</strong>.</li> <li>The lower tribunals had rejected the SRA’s plea to restore the <span class="key-term" data-definition="Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) — a security amount paid by the SRA to demonstrate seriousness of its bid; it may be forfeited on non‑compliance (GS3: Economy)">EMD</span> of ₹1 crore.</li> <li>The Court observed that the appellant tried to delay implementation by claiming the <span class="key-term" data-definition="Letter of Intent (LoI) — a document issued by the Resolution Professional confirming acceptance of the bid, subject to conditions specified in the plan (GS3: Economy)">LoI</span> was conditional, which was contrary to the approved plan.</li> <li>The judgment cited the 2021 <em>Ebix Singapore Private Limited vs. Committee of Creditors</em> case, reaffirming that no negotiations are allowed after CoC approval.</li> </ul> <h3>Important Facts</h3> <p><strong>August 9, 2018</strong>: CIRP against <strong>Oracle Home Textiles Ltd.</strong> commenced.<br> <strong>February 2020</strong>: NCLT permitted the suspended management to submit a resolution plan.<br> <strong>May 10, 2021</strong>: CoC approved the plan with <strong>99.90 % voting share</strong>.<br> After the SRA disputed the LoI, it failed to furnish the performance guarantee; the RP forfeited the <strong>₹1 crore EMD</strong>.<br> Subsequently, CoC voted <strong>99.61 %</strong> for liquidation under Section 33(2) of the IBC.<br> NCLT and NCLAT upheld liquidation; the matter reached the Supreme Court, resulting in the present judgment (2026 LiveLaw (SC) 562).</p> <h3>UPSC Relevance</h3> <p