Appeals by personal guarantors were dismissed after the CoC rejected their revised joint repayment plan.

In brief

The question

1. Whether any further consideration was required in the appeals in view of the CoC’s rejection of the revised joint repayment plan.

The court held

The Tribunal answered the issues against the appellants.

It also directed

It held that nothing further required consideration in the appeals and dismissed Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins.) Nos. 444–448 of 2026.

The appeals were dismissed without costs.

01Facts

The five appeals were filed by personal guarantors of the corporate debtor against proceedings involving the Resolution Professional and financial creditors.

p. 5 · ¶ 1

In its earlier order dated 7 September 2026, the Appellate Tribunal had referred to the Adjudicating Authority’s direction permitting the appellants to submit a joint repayment plan and requiring its consideration; that direction was not complied with.

p. 5 · ¶ 1

During the hearing, the parties brought to the Tribunal’s attention the minutes of the fourth meeting of the Committee of Creditors (“CoC”) held on 21 February 2026, which recorded that the revised joint repayment plan dated 18 February 2026 had been rejected by the CoC.

p. 5 · ¶ 2

The CoC minutes expressly described the proposal as a “joint repayment plan”.

p. 5 · ¶ 2

02Issues

i.1. Whether any further consideration was required in the appeals in view of the CoC’s rejection of the revised joint repayment plan.

p. 5 · ¶ 2–3

ii.2. Whether the appeals filed by the personal guarantors could be allowed despite non-compliance with the direction to submit and have considered a joint repayment plan.

p. 5 · ¶ 1

03Law Applied

The Tribunal applied the procedural directions governing consideration of the appellants’ joint repayment plan and treated the CoC’s recorded decision on that plan as material to the disposal of the appeals.

p. 5 · ¶ 1–2

The order does not expressly cite any specific provision of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, or any judicial precedent; accordingly, the applicable rule was that once the revised joint repayment plan had been considered and rejected by the CoC, and the earlier direction had not otherwise been complied with, no further relief or consideration was warranted in the appeals.

p. 5 · ¶ 3

04Reasoning

The Tribunal noted that the earlier procedural course contemplated submission and consideration of a joint repayment plan.

p. 5 · ¶ 1

That course had not resulted in an approved plan: the CoC minutes recorded that the revised plan dated 18 February 2026 was rejected at its meeting on 21 February 2026.

p. 5 · ¶ 2

Since the proposal had in fact been considered by the CoC and rejected, the Tribunal found no surviving issue requiring further adjudication in the appeals.

p. 5 · ¶ 3