# In the matter of G. Balasubramaniam & Ors. vs. CA Mahalingam Suresh Kumar & Ors.

> NCLAT judgment dated 2023-10-10. Citation: TCN-2023-NCLAT-00136. The case involves two company appeals, Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No.309/2023 and Company…

- **Court:** NCLAT
- **Order date:** 10 Oct 2023
- **Citation:** TCN-2023-NCLAT-00136
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/g-balasubramaniam-ors-vs-ca-mahalingam-suresh-kumar-ors-92166f0e

## Summary

### Background

The case involves two company appeals, Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No.309/2023 and Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 321/2023, filed against the impugned orders in IA(IBC)/493/CHE/2023 and IA(IBC)/349(CHE)/2023 dated 25.08.2023 passed by the Adjudicating Authority / National Company Law Tribunal, Division Bench No.1, Chennai. The appeals challenge the approval of a Resolution Plan under Section 31 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, submitted by the 3rd Respondent, the Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA), for GBJ Hotels Private Limited, the Corporate Debtor. The Appellants, suspended directors and shareholders of GBJ Hotels, raised objections regarding the constitution of the LLP, discrimination in payment to related parties, material irregularity in the

…

## Facts

GBJ Hotels Private Limited underwent Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). The Committee of Creditors (CoC) approved a Resolution Plan submitted by K.P. Advisory Services LLP. The Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Chennai Bench) approved the Resolution Plan on 25.08.2023. Mr. G. Balasubramaniam and Mrs. B. Jeevarathinam, suspended directors and shareholders of GBJ Hotels, filed appeals challenging the approval. The Appellants argued that the Resolution Applicant, a Limited Liability Partnership (LLP), was not legally constituted, that the Resolution Plan undervalued the assets of the Corporate Debtor, that there was discriminatory treatment of operational creditors, and that there were material irregularities in the resolution process.

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the Adjudicating Authority failed to consider the objectives of the I&B Code in …

**Ratio:** The commercial wisdom of the Committee of Creditors (CoC) is paramount, and judicial

…

**Reasoning:** The NCLAT relied on precedents emphasizing the limited scope of judicial review in

…

**Interpretation:** The I&B Code prioritizes the commercial decisions of the CoC, and the

…

**Application:** The NCLAT found that the Adjudicating Authority had adequately considered the

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** M. Venu…; Shreesha…
- **Appellants:** G. Balasubr…
- **Respondents:** GBJ Hotels…; CA Mahalingam…
- **Advocates:** R.Sankarana…; K.S. Ravich…; +5 more

## Timeline

- **2023-08-25 — Impugned Ord…**: The Adjudicating Authority passed the impugned order in IA(IBC)/493(CHE)/2023 and…
- **2022-04-12 — Wilful Defaulter…**: The Corporate Debtor was classified as a…

## Legal provisions

- [Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 61 — Appeals and Appellate Authority](https://caseease.in/legal-provisions/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016/section-61)

---

This is a preview. The full structured summary, issues, precedents and source judgment are available on CaseEase - Legal Intelligence Simplified: https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/g-balasubramaniam-ors-vs-ca-mahalingam-suresh-kumar-ors-92166f0e