Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016:s. 30(2) and (4), 31, 33 and 61(3) – Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) – Resolution plan rejected by impugned order on the ground that the plan did not garner support of not less than 75% of voting share of financial creditors constituting Committee of Creditors (COC) – On appeal, held: Upon receipt of a “rejected” resolution plan, the adjudicating authority (NCLT) is obligated to initiate liquidation process u/s. 33(1) – It does not have authority to analyse or evaluate the commercial decision of the CoC or to enquire into the justness of the rejection of the resolution plan by the dissenting financial creditors – The legislature, consciously,has not provided any ground to challenge the “commercial wisdom”of the individual financial creditors or their collective decision before the adjudicating authority – The discretion of the adjudicating authority (NCLT) is circumscribed by Section 31 limited to scrutiny of the resolution plan “as approved” by the requisite percent of voting share of financial creditors – The provisions investing jurisdiction and authority in the NCLT or NCLAT has not made the commercial decision exercised by the CoC of not approving the resolution plan or rejecting the same, justiciable – The matters or grounds u/s. 30(2) or u/s. 61(3) are regarding testing the validity of the “approved” resolution plan by the CoC and not for approving the resolution plan which has been disapproved or deemed to have been rejected by the CoC in exercise of its business decision –Therefore, neither the adjudicating authority (NCLT) nor the Appellate Authority (NCLAT) has been endowed with the jurisdiction to reverse the commercial wisdom of the dissenting financial creditors – Since none of the grounds available under Section 30(2)or Section 61(3) of the I&B Code are attracted in the fact situation of the present case, the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT) as well as the Appellate Authority (NCLAT) had no other option but to record  that the proposed resolution plan stood rejected – Introduction of new norm and qualifying standard for approval of a resolution plan in the amendment Act (reducing the threshold requirement of percent of voting share of financial creditors to 66%) will have prospective operation – NCLAT could not have examined the case on the basis of the amended provision – Supreme Court in exercise of powers u/Article 142 of the Constitution cannot set aside the order passed by the Tribunal and relegate the parties in both the cases, before the NCLT for considering the proceedings afresh in light of the amended provision – NCLAT has justly concluded that the resolution plan has not been approved by requisite percent of voting share of the financial creditors and in absence of any alternative resolution plan presented within the statutory period of 270 days, the inevitable sequel is to initiate liquidation process u/s. 33 – Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 – Regs. 25 and 39 –Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Act, 2017 –Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Second Amendment) Act, 2018 –Constitution of India – Art. 142.