Several Operational Creditors filed appeals against the Resolution Plan submitted by the resolution applicant, arguing that their concerns were not adequately addressed. They claimed that the minimum amount prescribed under Section 30(2)(b) of the I&B Code was not met and that they were not properly notified or heard by the Committee of Creditors. The Resolution Applicant argued that the debt owed to the Operational Creditors was less than 10% of the total debt, and therefore, no specific notice was required under Section 24(3)(c) of the I&B Code. The Appellate Tribunal noted that the claims of the creditors had already been dealt with in a previous judgment and that the Resolution Plan had been approved at different levels and acted upon.

Several Operational Creditors filed appeals against the Resolution Plan submitted by the resolution applicant, arguing that their concerns were not adequately addressed. They claimed that the minimum amount prescribed under Section 30(2)(b) of the I&B Code was not met and that they were not properly notified or heard by the Committee of Creditors. The Resolution Applicant argued that the debt owed to the Operational Creditors was less than 10% of the total debt, and therefore, no specific notice was required under Section 24(3)(c) of the I&B Code. The Appellate Tribunal noted that the claims of the creditors had already been dealt with in a previous judgment and that the Resolution Plan had been approved at different levels and acted upon.