# In the matter of Deccan Value Investors LLP & Anr. vs. Dinkar Venkatasubramanian & Anr.

> SC judgment dated 2024-03-06. Citation: TCN-2024-SC-00091. The case involves cross-appeals under Section 62 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, filed…

- **Court:** SC
- **Order date:** 6 Mar 2024
- **Citation:** TCN-2024-SC-00091
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/supreme-court-of-india/deccan-value-investors-llp-anr-vs-dinkar-venkatasubramanian-anr-9b5eebe3

## Summary

### Background

The case involves cross-appeals under Section 62 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, filed by successful resolution applicants Deccan Value Investors L.P. and DVI PE (Mauritius) Ltd., the Committee of Creditors of Metalyst Forgings Limited, and Dinkar Venkatasubramanian, the Resolution Professional of Metalyst Forgings Limited. The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) had passed an impugned judgment on 07.02.2020, upholding an order dated 27.09.2019 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai Bench. The resolution applicants sought to withdraw their resolution plan, citing lack of information and fraud on the part of the resolution professional.

## Facts

The corporate debtor in question is Metalyst Forgings Ltd. The successful resolution applicants, Deccan Value Investors L.P. and DVI PE (Mauritius) Ltd., filed cross-appeals under Section 62 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) passed an impugned judgment dated 07.02.2020, upholding an order dated 27.09.2019 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai Bench. The resolution applicants sought to withdraw their resolution plan, claiming lack of information and fraud by the resolution professional. They alleged that 70% of the corporate debtor's revenue came from trading, not manufacturing, and that the Mott Macdonald Report dated 30.09.2016 was factually incorrect. They also claimed misleading

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the resolution applicant can withdraw or modify the resolution plan after it has been …

**Ratio:** A resolution applicant cannot withdraw or modify the resolution plan after it has been

…

**Reasoning:** The Court reasoned that allowing withdrawal or modification after approval would cause

…

**Interpretation:** This interpretation reinforces the binding nature of a resolution plan once

…

**Application:** In this case, the resolution applicants sought to withdraw their plan after

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** SANJIV K…; DIPANKAR…
- **Appellants:** DECCAN VALUE…
- **Respondents:** Metalyst Forgings…; Dinkar Venkatasubr…; +1 more
- **Other parties:** Over Tu…

## Timeline

- **2016-09-30 — Mott Macdonald Report…**: The Mott Macdonald Report, which was later disputed for being factually incorrect, was…
- **2019-09-27 — NCLT Ord…**: The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai Bench, passed an order on 27.09.2019,…

## Legal provisions

- [Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 62 — Appeal to Supreme Court](https://caseease.in/legal-provisions/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016/section-62)

---

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/supreme-court-of-india/deccan-value-investors-llp-anr-vs-dinkar-venkatasubramanian-anr-9b5eebe3