Background: CIL Limited (hereinafter referred as 'CIL' or Corporate Debtor) is a manufacturer of precision engineering and automobile components, namely crankshafts for tractors, HCVs, LCVs as well as two-wheelers, as al

Background: CIL Limited (hereinafter referred as 'CIL' or Corporate Debtor) is a manufacturer of precision engineering and automobile components, namely crankshafts for tractors, HCVs, LCVs as well as two-wheelers, as also connecting rods, steering knuckles and hubs. IBD Bank, one of the Financial Creditors of the Company has initiated a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). Appointment of Resolution Professional: The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) has appointed Mr. RL as the Interim Resolution Professional and subsequently, he was confirmed as the Resolution Professional (hereinafter referred to as the "RP") by the NCLT. Receipt and Admission of Claims: The RP received a claim for ₹1,850 crores and after verification of claims, the RP admitted a claim of ₹1,780 crores and the balance of claims was rejected by the RP. Break-up of Claims Admitted: Out of admitted claim of ₹1,780 crores, the Financial Creditors claim was ₹1,620 crores, Workmen Wages pending for a period of last 24 months is ₹18 crores, Employees pending claims for a period of last 12 months is ₹15 crores, Claims by Operational Creditors and Statutory Authorities is ₹127 crores. Going forward, the RP published an "Expression of Interest." Subsequently, it was revised on three different dates. The Resolution Applicant (hereinafter referred to as the 'RA') submitted its first Resolution Plan during April, 2019 providing to pay ₹75 crores to all the stakeholders including ₹62 crores to Financial Creditors (FCs). After a series of negotiations, the RA submitted an addendum to the Resolution Plan during May 2019 by which the RA raised the payment to Financial Creditors to ₹74 crores and at the request of the Committee of Creditors (hereinafter referred to as the "CoC". Thereafter, once again, the RA submitted a Revised Plan during June, 2019 wherein the total pay-out was ₹86 crores and the Financial Creditors were to be paid ₹75 crores. Further, the statutory requirement of the RP involving two approved valuers for giving reports, apropos fair market value and liquidation value was duly complied with and the figures in both reports were not at great variance. The final Resolution Plan was submitted on August, 2019, in which the financial proposal/ total pay-out was increased to ₹130 crores and the Financial Creditors were to get upfront payment of ₹81 crores towards final settlement. The total estimated liquidation cost and fee to the Resolution Professional and other connected/incidental expenses was ₹3.30 crores. Final Approval of the Resolution Plan by CoC: This final Resolution Plan submitted by the Resolution Applicant during August, 2019 was finally approved by the CoC by a majority of 88% votes. In terms of such approval of the Resolution Plan, the RP moved Approval Application under Sections 30(6) and 31 of the IBC, 2016 seeking approval of the Resolution Plan before the Adjudicating Authority-NCLT. In terms of the Resolution Plan, for which approval was being sought, the Corporate Debtor would be allowed the benefit of carry forward of its losses in terms of Section 79 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The NCLT, vide its order, by which the approval of the Resolution Plan was kept in abeyance, directed the Official Liquidator (OL) to provide the exact figures/value of assets. The same was carried in appeal under Section 61 of the Code by the RA before the NCLAT which passed the impugned Judgment on 19th January, 2022, dismissing the appeal, thereby upholding the order of the NCLT. It is imperative to note that the moot question involved is the extent of the jurisdiction and powers of the Adjudicating Authority in the background of the admitted and undisputed factual position that no objection was raised by any quarter with regard to any deficiency/irregularity, either by the RP or the Appellant or the CoC in finally approving the resolution plan which was sent to the Adjudicating Authority-NCLT for approval. Further, the NCLT and the NCLAT did not fully recognise that under the Resolution Plan, the Corporate Debtor was set to be revived and not liquidated. In view of the above, the RA filed an appeal before the Supreme Court. In the given case study, what percentage of 'Hair-cut' shall be borne by the Financial Creditors ?