Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016: ss. 30(1), 30(2), 31, 53 –Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) – Approval of resolution plan – Initiation of CIRP of Corporate Debtor – Resolution applicant declared successful – Resolution plan approved with 100 per cent voting share of the Committee of Creditors(CoC) and subsequently approved by NCLT – Appellants-Operational creditors challenged the order of NCLT approving the resolution plan on the ground that the claim of the appellants had not received a fair and equitable treatment – NCLAT upheld the order of NCLT holding that the equitable treatment can be claimed only by similarly situated creditors – On appeal, held: Decision to approve a resolution plan is entrusted to the CoC – Jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Authority and the Appellate Authority cannot extend into entering upon merits of a business decision made by a requisite majority of the CoC in its commercial wisdom – Nor there is a residual equity based jurisdiction in the Authorities to interfere in the decision of CoC – Commercial wisdom of the CoC in its collegial capacity is, thus, not justiciable – Equitable treatment of creditors is equitable treatment only within the same class – Financial creditors belong to a class distinct from operational creditors – Fair and equitable‘ norm does not mean that financial and operational creditors must be paid the same amounts in any resolution plan before it can pass muster – On facts, resolution plan duly approved by a requisite majority of the CoC in conformity with s. 30(4) – Exclusion of some of the financial creditors from the CoC of no consequence, once the plan approved by a 100 per cent voting share of the CoC – Furthermore, value of preference shares included in calculating the liquidation value of the CorporateDebtor; and that the liquidation value due to the unsecured operational creditors would remain nil – Jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Authority was confined by the provisions of s. 31(1) to determine whether the requirements of s. 30(2) have been fulfilled in the plan as approved by the CoC – Thus, the decisions of NCLT and NCLAT in conformity with law. ss. 31(1), 30(2) – Resolution plan – Approval by Committee of Creditors – Jurisdiction of NCLT and NCLAT – Held: Under the provisions of IBC, neither the Adjudicating Authority-NCLT nor the Appellate Authority-NCLAT have an unchartered jurisdiction in equity – Jurisdiction arises within and as a product of a statutory framework. Purpose and objective of – Held: IBC is a complete code in itself – It defines fair and equitable treatment by constituting a comprehensive framework within which the actors partake in the insolvency process – Process envisaged by the IBC is a direct representation of certain economic goals of the Indian economy – To submit that a residuary jurisdiction must be exercised to alter the delicate economic coordination envisaged by the statute, would do violence on its purpose and would be an impermissible exercise of the Adjudicating Authority‘s power of judicial review – Thus, once the requirements of the IBC have been fulfilled, the Adjudicating Authority and the Appellate Authority duty bound to abide the statutory provisions. Insolvency and Bankruptcy laws: Resolution/reorganization plans – Challenge to, on the grounds of fairness and equity by foreign jurisdictions vis-a-vis Indian insolvency regime – Discussed – United Kingdom‘s Insolvency Act, 1986 – United States‘ US Bankruptcy Code – Indian Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.