NON­REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).1706 OF 2023
SREI MULTIPLE ASSET INVESTMENT 
TRUST VISION INDIA FUND ….APPELLANT(S)
                 VERSUS
DECCAN CHRONICLE MARKETEERS 
& OTHERS ….RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).8323 OF 2022
AND
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).8132 OF 2022
J U D G M E N T
Rastogi, J.
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).1706 OF 2023
1. The instant appeal has been filed by the successful resolution
applicant   (for   short   “SRA”)   of   the   Corporate   Debtor   (Deccan
Chronicle   Holdings   Ltd.)   whose   Resolution   Plan   was   approved   by
1

81.39%   voting   by   the   Committee   of   Creditors   (CoC)   and
conditionally  by  the adjudicating  authority/National Company  Law
Tribunal   (for   short   “NCLT”)   by   order   dated   3 rd
  June,   2019,   subject
to the outcome of I.A. No.155 of 2018 and that came to be decided
by   the   adjudicating   authority/NCLT,   Hyderabad   Bench   by   order
dated   14 th
  August,   2019   and   that   became   the   subject   matter   of
challenge   before   the   National   Company   Law   Appellate   Tribunal(for
short   “NCLAT”)   at   the   instance   of   the   Corporate   Debtor   wherein   it
was   stated   that   what   has   been   observed   by   the   adjudicating
authority   while   disposing   of   I.A.   No.155   of   2018   under   its   order
dated 14 th
  August, 2019, will amount to a modification/alternation
of the approved Resolution Plan by the CoC which is impermissible
in law.
2. The   brief   facts   culled   out   from   the   record   are   that   the
appellant   is   the   successful   resolution   applicant   (SRA)   of   the
Corporate Debtor  – Deccan Chronicle Holdings Ltd. (DCHL), whose
Resolution   Plan  was  approved   by   the   CoC   of   the   Corporate   Debtor
with 81.39% voting share which was conditionally approved by the
adjudicating authority (NCLT) by order dated 3 rd
 June, 2019.  
2

3. It   has   come   on   record   that   the   Corporate   Debtor/DCHL   was
incorporated   on   16 th
  December,   2002   under   Certificate   of
Incorporation issued by the Registrar of Companies, Hyderabad and
has been into the business of printing, publication and sale of daily
newspapers   under   the   trade   names,   “Deccan   Chronicle”   (English)
and   “Andhra   Bhoomi”   (Telugu)   (hereinafter   referred   to   as   the
“trademarks”).
4. The Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (for short “CIRP”)
was initiated under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (for
short   “IBC”)   against   DCHL   by   Canara   Bank   (Financial   Creditor)
before   the   adjudicating   authority   (NCLT).     The   petition   filed   by
Canara Bank was admitted on 5 th
  July, 2017 and the adjudicating
authority imposed Moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC staying
pending proceedings in all Courts against DCHL.  
5. The Moratorium was extended for a further  period of 90 days
vide order of adjudicating authority dated 10 th
 November, 2018.   
6. The   CIRP   period   of   the   Corporate   Debtor   ended   on   15 th
February,  2019.     Pursuant  to  initiation  of Resolution  Process, the
Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) issued a public announcement
3

and invited claims from the creditors of the Corporate Debtor.   On
receiving   the   claims,   the   IRP   collated   the   same   and   constituted   a
Committee of Creditors (CoC).
7. That the Expression of Interest (EoI) was published in the All­
India   edition   of   Business   Standard   dated   8 th
  February,   2018   for   a
widespread coverage with the last date for receipt of the EoIs being
15 th
  February, 2018 (6.00 p.m.) which was later extended upto 17 th
April,   2018   and   after   various   rounds   of   meetings   of   the   CoC,   the
Resolution   Plan   submitted   by   the   appellant   (SRA)   was   deliberated
upon   in   the   20 th
  meeting   of   the   CoC   held   on   10 th
  December,   2018
and finally the Resolution Plan of the appellant was approved by the
CoC with 81.39% of voting rights.  
8. On 11 th
 December, 2018, as per the provisions of Section 30(4)
of   the   IBC   read   with   Regulation   39   of   the   Insolvency   and
Bankruptcy   Board   of   India   (Insolvency   Resolution   Process   for
Corporate   Persons)   Regulations,   2016,   the   Resolution   Plan   of   the
appellant   was   found   to   be   in   compliance   with   the   mandatory
provisions of Section 30(2) of the IBC and the relevant Regulations,
and it was later approved by the adjudicating authority by an order
4

dated   3 rd
  June,   2019   and   the   same   became   binding   on   Corporate
Debtor,   its   employees,   members,   creditors   and   all   stakeholders
involved  in   the  Resolution   Plan,  but  as  regards  the  brand  name  of
the Corporate Debtor, application I.A. No.155 of 2018 was pending
seeking a declaration by the Corporate Debtor that it is the owner of
the trademarks (“Deccan Chronicle” and “Andhra Bhoomi”) and the
said   trademarks   be   treated   as   part   of   the   assets   of   the   Corporate
Debtor.
9. After   the   Resolution   Plan   stood   approved   by   the   adjudicating
authority under  order dated 3 rd
  June, 2019 subject to condition in
reference   to   the   rights   over   the   brand   name/trademarks   of   the
Corporate   Debtor,   the   adjudicating   authority   later   decided   the
application I.A. No.155 of 2018 with a direction that the Resolution
Professional   has   established   that   it  is   the  Corporate  Debtor/DCHL
who   has   an   exclusive   right   to   use   the   trademarks   “Deccan
Chronicle” and “Andhra Bhoomi” and also made a declaration that
the   trademarks   (“Deccan   Chronicle”   and   “Andhra   Bhoomi”)   belong
to   the   Corporate   Debtor/DCHL   under   its   order   dated   14 th
  August,
2019.  
5

10. The   order   passed   in   I.A.   No.155   of   2018   by   the   NCLT   dated
14 th
  August,   2019   became   the   subject   matter   of   challenge   at   the
instance   of   the   first   respondent   by   way   of   an   appeal   before   the
NCLAT.
11. The   NCLAT,   after   hearing   the   parties,   arrived   to   a   conclusion
that the declaration made by the NCLT holding the ownership rights
of   the   Corporate   Debtor   over   the   trademarks   “Deccan   Chronicle”
and   “Andhra   Bhoomi”   amount   to   a   modification/alteration   of   the
approved   Resolution   Plan   by   CoC,   which   is   impermissible   in   law
and   held   that   the   order   of   the   adjudicating   authority,   in   fact,   has
transgressed   its   jurisdiction   and   accordingly   set   aside   the   order
dated   14 th
  August,   2019   passed   in   I.A.   No.155   of   2018   under   the
order   impugned   dated   2 nd
  September,   2022,   that   became   the
subject   matter   of   challenge   in   appeal   before   this   Court   at   the
instance of the appellant/SRA.   
12. Mr.   K.V.   Viswanathan,   learned   senior   counsel   appearing   for
the   appellant   submits   that   NCLAT   has   misinterpreted   Clause   4.3
and   Clause   11.12   of   the   Resolution   Plan   which   categorically   state
that   the   appellant   holds   unfettered   and   exclusive   rights   to   the
6

trademarks   without   any   financial   implications   and   with   these
unforeseen commercial consequences if it only reserves the right to
use the trademarks, the Resolution Plan is a non­starter. The NCLT
under its order has approved the Resolution Plan by 81.39% of the
voting   of   CoC   and   the   finding   recorded   by   the   NCLAT   that   it
amounts to alteration of the conditions of approved Resolution Plan
is misconceived and needs to be interfered by this Court.  
13. Learned   counsel   further   submits   that   the   NCLAT   has
erroneously   recorded   in   I.A.   No.155   of   2018   seeking   declaration   of
ownership   rights   over   the   trademarks   filed   by   the   Resolution
Professional   on   its   own   accord,   while   ignoring   the   material   on
record.   Learned counsel has tried to take us to certain minutes of
the   CoC   to   justify   that   what   being   decided   by   the   adjudicating
authority   while   disposing   of   I.A.   No.155   of   2018   is   nothing   but
approving the Resolution Plan, which in no manner tantamount to
alteration/modification of Clause 11.12 of the Plan and this being a
manifest error committed by the NCLAT under the order impugned
needs to be interfered by this Court.   
7

14. Per   contra,   Mr.   P.   Chidambaram,   learned   senior   counsel   for
the   respondents,   while   supporting   the   findings   returned   by   the
NCLAT   under   order   impugned   submits   that   the   Resolution   Plan,
particularly,   with   reference   to   the   right   to   trademarks   was   only
confined   to   the   perpetual   exclusive   right   to   use   the   trademarks,
namely,   “Deccan   Chronicle”   and   “Andhra   Bhoomi”   without   any
financial   implications   for   the   purpose   of   running   its   business,   but
while disposing of I.A. No.155 of 2018 by the adjudicating authority,
it has altered/modified the Resolution Plan already approved, which
was   not   within   its   jurisdiction   and   Section   60(5)   or   Section   238   of
the   Code   do   not   permit   the   adjudicating   authority   to   decide   the
issue   in   respect   to   ownership   of   trademarks   and   since   declaration
of ownership over the trademarks was approved by the adjudicating
authority, it is impermissible in law and such a declaration could be
claimed   by   the   person   aggrieved   under   Section   134   of   the
Trademarks   Act,   1999.       Placing   reliance   on   the   judgment   of   this
Court   in   Embassy   Property   Developments   Private   Limited   v.
State   of   Karnataka   and   Others 1
,   learned   counsel   submits   that
1   (2020) 13 SCC 308
8

the   finding   returned   by   the   NCLAT   under   the   order   impugned   is
duly supported by law and needs no interference.
15. We  have  heard   learned   counsel   for   the   parties   and  with   their
assistance perused the material available on record.
16. Before   we   take   note   of   the   submissions   made   by   counsel   for
the parties, it will be apposite to take note of the Resolution Plan of
Corporate   Debtor   (Decan   Chronicle   Holdings   Ltd.   or   DCHL)   dated
11 th
  December,   2018   and   Clauses   4   (brands   of   the   Corporate
Debtor) and 11.12, in particular with which we are concerned in the
instant proceedings, as extracted hereinbelow:­
“ 4. BRANDS OF THE CORPORATE DEBTOR
4.1   The   Corporate   Debtor   as   of   now   use   the   following
brands/trademarks for running its business:
a. DECCAN CHRONICLE
b. ANDHRA BHOOMI
c. THE ASIAN AGE
d. FINANCIAL CHRONICLE
e. DECCAN CHARGERS; AND 
f. ODYSSEY.
4.2 One or more of the above brands are charged in favour of one or
more   of   Financial   Creditors   or   any   other   creditors   including
without limitation the following Financial Creditors:
a. AXIS BANK LIMITED
9

b. CANARA BANK LIMITED
c. ICICI BANK LIMITED
d. IDBI BANK LIMITED
e. IDFC BANK LIMITED; and 
f. KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED
4.3 In order to keep the Corporate Debtor as a viable going concern, it
is of utmost importance that all the 6 (six) brands as afore­stated,
can   be   used   freely   by   the   Corporate   Debtor   without   any
hindrance,   limitation,   restrictions,   impediments,   demur   and
obstruction   of   any   nature   whatsoever.   In   order   to   achieve   the
same,   the   above   Financial   Creditors   shall   be   deemed   to   have
released   their   right   under   the   relevant   security   documents   with
respect to the said brands in favour of the Resolution Applicant on
and   from   the   date   the   above   Financial   Creditors   stand   paid   in
terms of Clause 3 of this Resolution Plan, in consideration of the
settlement arrived at by virtue of this Resolution Plan.
11. Prayer to the Adjudicating Authority
It   is   prayed   to   the   Hon’ble   Adjudicating   Authority   to   sanction   the
Resolution   Plan   along   with   following   prayers,   reliefs,   waivers   and
concessions:
11.1   The   Adjudicating   Authority   to   pass   necessary   orders/give
appropriate   directions   to   give   effect   to   the   reorganizations   of
shares   capital   of   the   Corporate   Debtor   as   contemplated   in
Clause 1, including reduction, consolidation and cancellation,
to the effect so that:
11.1.1   Upon   approval   of   the   Resolution   Plan   by   the   Hon’ble
Adjudicating Authority, any increase in the Authorised Share
Capital   of   the   convertible   debt   into   equity   shares   of   the
corporate   debtor   shall   not   require   any   further   consent   or
approval   from   any   shareholder,   creditors   or   any   other   entity
(including   without   limitation   any   regulatory   and
governmental authority) under the Applicable Laws;
11.1.2     At   the   time   of   capital   reduction   the   requirement   of
adding   “and   reduced”   in   the   name   of   the   corporate   debtor
stands dispensed with;
11.1.3     The   approval   of   this   resolution   plan   by   the
adjudicating authority is to be deemed to have waived all the
10

procedural   requirements   in   terms   of   Section   66   of   the
Companies Act, 2013, and the NCLT (Procedure for Reduction
of Share Capital) Rules, 2016;
11.1.4     The   approval   of   the  CoC   to   the  Resolution   Plan  is   to
be deemed  to  be the consent  of the financial creditors to the
capital reduction and that each of such financial creditors by
the Adjudicating Authority under the Applicable Laws;
11.1.5  The cancellation of shares shall not require any other
procedure   as   required   under   the   Companies   Act,   including
that under Section 66 of the Companies Act or regulations of
the SEBI;
11.1.6     The   Adjudicating   Authority   approving   the   Resolution
Plan shall constitute adequate approval for such cancellation
of   shares   and   accordingly,   no   further   approval   or   consent
shall   be   necessary   from   any   other   person/Government   or
Statutory   Authority   in   relation   to   either   or   these   actions
under   any   agreement,   the   constitution   documents   of   the
Company or under any applicable law;
…….
11.12   Adjudicating   Authority   to   pass   necessary   order/give
appropriate   directions   to   give   effect   that   the   corporate
debtor   has   the   perpetual   exclusive   right   to   use   the
brands   namely   (i)   DECCAN   CHRONICLES;   (ii)   ANDHRA
BHOOMI;   (iii)   THE   ASIAN   AGE;   (iv)   FINANCIAL
CHRONICLE; (v) DECCAN CHARGERS; AND (vi) ODYSSEY
without   any   financial   implications   for   the   purposes   of
running its business; 
……”
17. It may be relevant to note that the Resolution Plan referred to
above   was   approved   with   majority   of   81.39%   voting   rights   of   CoC
which is in compliance of Section 30(2) and 30(4) of the IBC.
11

18. When   the   matter   travelled   for   seeking   approval   by   the
adjudicating   authority   (NCLT),  it  was  conditionally   approved   by   an
order   dated   3 rd
  June,   2019,   subject   to   the   result   of   I.A.   No.155   of
2018   pending   before   the   adjudicating   authority   in   reference   to   the
brand   names/trademarks   of   the   Corporate   Debtor.   It   will   be
apposite to quote the extract of the order passed by the adjudicating
authority   (NCLT)   while   granting   conditional   approval,   which   is
reproduced hereunder:
“16. The Resolution Applicant has to obtain necessary approval if
any required within one year as per Section 31(4) of the Code. The
Resolution   Applicant   further   prayed   for   order/direction   to   use
brand name of the Corporate Debtor. However, an Application was
filed   claiming   exclusive   right   over   the   brand   name/trademarks   of
the Corporate Debtor. Subject to the result of the said Application,
the   Resolution   Applicant   is   entitled   to   use   the   brand
name/trademark   of   the   Corporate   Debtor   as   stated   in   Clause
11.12 of the Resolution Plan.
…
19.   Thus,   Resolution   Plan   dated   11.12.2018   submitted   by
Resolution   Applicant   M/s   SREI   Multiple   Asset   Investment   Trust
Vision   India   Fund,   which   is   approved   by   members   of   CoC   having
81.39% voting share stands approved subject to reliefs refereed to
at paras 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 & 17 stated above as per Section 31(1)
of the Code. In other words, I am satisfied with the Resolution Plan
as approved  by  Committee  of Creditors under  Section  30(4)  of the
Code and it meets the requirement as referred to in Section 30 (2)
of   IBC,   2016   and   therefore,   the   Resolution   Plan   stands   approved
and   the   same   is   binding   on   Corporate   Debtor,   its   employees,
Members,   Creditors,   Guarantors   and   stakeholders   involved   in   the
Resolution Plan.
20. The moratorium order passed under  Section 14 shall cease to
have effect from today.
12

21. The Resolution Professional shall forward all records relating to
the   conduct   of   the   Corporate   Insolvency   Resolution   Process   and
the Resolution Plan to the Board to be recorded on its database. 
22.   The   Resolution   Applicant   shall   obtain   necessary   approval
required under any law for  the time being  in force within a period
of   one   year   from   the   date   of   approval   of   the   Resolution   Plan   or
within such period as provided for in such law.”
19. That   after   the   conditional   approval   was   granted   by   the   NCLT
under   order   dated   3 rd
  June,   2019,   I.A.   No.155   of   2018   was   later
heard by the NCLT and that came to the decided by an order dated
14 th
  August,   2019.   While   upholding   the   exclusive   right   to   use   the
trademarks   “Deccan   Chronicle”   and   “Andhra   Bhoomi”   of   the
Corporate   Debtor,   a   further   declaration   was   made   that   the
trademarks   (“Deccan   Chronicle”   and   “Andhra   Bhoomi”)   belong   to
the Corporate Debtor/DCHL.     Paras 37 and 38 of the order  dated
14 th
  August,   2019   passed   by   the   NCLT   disposing   of   I.A.   No.155   of
2018, are reproduced hereinbelow:
“37. Here, the question involved is who is using the Trademarks on
the   date   when   CIRP   against   Corporate   Debtor   started.   The
documents   filed   by   Resolution   Professional/Applicant   herein
coupled   with   subsequent   conduct   of   Corporate   Debtor   would
establish  that  it  is  the Corporate  Debtor   who  has the  right   to use
the   Trademarks   “Deccan   Chronicle”   and   “Andhra   Bhoomi”   and
they belong to Corporate Debtor.
38.   The   Application   is   allowed   declaring   Trademarks   “Deccan
Chronicle”   and   “Andhra   Bhoomi”   belong   to   Corporate
Debtor/DCHL.” 
13

20. It   may   be   relevant   to   note   that   if   we   look   into   the   Resolution
Plan   and   particularly   Clause   11.12   which   has   been   referred   to
hereinabove,   it   is   confined   to   the   perpetual   exclusive   right   to   use
the   brands   i.e.   “Deccan   Chronicle”   and   “Andhra   Bhoomi”,   etc.   by
the   Corporate   Debtor   without   any   financial   implications   for   the
purpose   of   running   its   business   and   it   was   approved   by   the
adjudicating   authority   under   its   order   dated   3 rd
  June,   2019,   but
since   it   was   made   subject   to   the   result   of   pending   I.A.   No.155   of
2018,   the   adjudicating   authority   had   approved   so   far   as   the
exclusive rights of the Corporate Debtor to use trademarks namely
“Deccan Chronicle” and “Andhra Bhoomi” under its order dated 14 th
August, 2019, but at the same time, a further declaration was made
in   para   38   holding   that   trademarks   “Deccan   Chronicle”   and
“Andhra   Bhoomi”   belong   to   the   Corporate   Debtor,   which   indeed
does   not   reconcile   with   the   Resolution   Plan   approved   by   the   CoC
and   later   by   the   adjudicating   authority   under   its   order   dated   3 rd
June, 2019.
21. The   NCLAT,   after   taking   into   consideration   the   material
available   on   record   and   Clause   11.12   of   the   Resolution   Plan,   in
14

para 16 of the order of the adjudicating authority (NCLT) returned a
finding   that   the   ownership   of   the   Corporate   Debtor   declared   over
the trademark after the approval of the Resolution Plan by the CoC,
would amount to modification/alteration of the approved Resolution
Plan   by   CoC   which   is   impermissible   in   law   and   is   not   in   terms   of
Section 60(5) of IBC.   
22. It has not been disputed by learned counsel for the appellant
that   once   the   Resolution   Plan   stands   approved,   no
alterations/modifications   are   permissible.     It   is   either   to   be
approved or disapproved, but any modification after approval of the
Resolution Plan by the CoC, based on its commercial wisdom, is not
open   for   judicial   review   unless   it   is   found   to   be   not   in   conformity
with the mandate of the IBC Code.  
23. It   clearly   manifests   from   the   record   that   the   Resolution   Plan
was   approved   by   the   CoC   with   81.39%   of   voting   and   it   complied
with   the   requirement   as   contemplated   under   Section   30(2)   and
30(4)   of   the   IBC   and   so   far   as   the   exclusive   right   to   use   of   brand
names of “Deccan Chronicle” and “Andhra Bhoomi” is concerned, a
15

specific reference was made in the Resolution Plan, and to be more
particular in Clause 11.12 of the Resolution Plan. 
24. It   clearly   indicates   that   what   was   approved   by   the   CoC   with
81.39% of its voting is to the effect that the Corporate Debtor has a
perpetual   exclusive   right   to   use   the   brands,   namely,   “Deccan
Chronicle”   and   “Andhra   Bhoomi”   and   it   nowhere   indicates
regarding   the   right   of   ownership   over   the   trademarks/brands,
“Deccan Chronicle” and “Andhra Bhoomi” of the Corporate Debtor.
But   the   adjudicating   authority   while   adjudicating   application   I.A.
No.155 of 2018, apart from upholding the exclusive right to use the
trademarks,   “Deccan   Chronicle”   and   “Andhra   Bhoomi”,   made   a
further   declaration   that   trademarks   belong   to   Corporate
Debtor/DCHL   under   its   order   dated   14 th
  August,   2019,   which,   in
our  view, was a modification/alteration in the approved Resolution
Plan  which  indisputably  is  impermissible  in law  and  this  what  the
NCLAT in para 32 of its impugned order has observed as under:
“32.     In   view   of   the   law   declared   by   Hon’ble   Apex   Court,   applying
the same to the present appeal, we have no hesitation to conclude
that right or ownership, if any, claimed after approval of Resolution
Plan by CoC is extinguished and if ownership of Corporate Debtor
is   declared   over   the   Trademarks,  it  would   amount   to  modification
or   alteration   of   approved   Resolution   Plan   by   CoC   which   is
impermissible.     Hence,   the   order   of   Adjudicating   Authority   to   the
16

extent   of   declaring   the   ownership   of   Corporate   Debtor   over   the
Trademarks   “Deccan   Chronicle”   and   “Andhra   Bhoomi”   is   illegal
and   the   Adjudicating   Authority   transgressed   the   jurisdictional
limits.   Consequently, the order passed in I.A. No.155/2018 dated
14 th
 August, 2019 is liable to be set aside.”
 
25. This   Court   in   Ebix   Singapore   Private   Limited   vs.
Committee   of   Creditors   of   Educomp   Solutions   Limited   &
Another 2
, had held as under:
221.   The   residual  powers   of  the  adjudicating   authority   under   IBC
cannot   be   exercised   to   create   procedural   remedies   which   have
substantive   outcomes   on   the   process   of   insolvency.   The
framework,   as   it   stands,   only   enables   withdrawals   from   the   CIRP
process   by   following   the   procedure   detailed   in   Section   12­A   IBC
and Regulation 30­A of the CIRP Regulations and in the situations
recognised   in   those   provisions.   Enabling   withdrawals   or
modifications of the resolution plan at the behest of the successful
resolution   applicant,   once   it   has   been   submitted   to   the
adjudicating   authority   after   due   compliance   with   the   procedural
requirements   and   timelines,   would   create   another   tier   of
negotiations which will be wholly unregulated by the statute.  Since
the   330   days'   outer   limit   of   the   CIRP   under   Section   12(3)   IBC,
including judicial proceedings, can be extended only in exceptional
circumstances, this open­ended process for further negotiations or
a   withdrawal,   would   have   a   deleterious   impact   on   the   corporate
debtor,   its   creditors,   and   the   economy   at   large   as   the   liquidation
value   depletes   with   the   passage   of   time.   A   failed   negotiation   for
modification   after   submission,   or   a   withdrawal   after   approval   by
the CoC and submission to the adjudicating authority, irrespective
of the content of the terms envisaged by the resolution plan, when
unregulated   by   statutory   timelines   could   occur   after   a   lapse   of
time,   as   is   the   case   in   the   present   three   appeals   before   us.
Permitting   such   a   course   of   action   would   either   result   in   a
downgraded   resolution   amount   of   the   corporate   debtor   and/or   a
delayed   liquidation   with   depreciated   assets   which   frustrates   the
core aim of IBC.
2   (2022) 2 SCC 401
17

222.   If the legislature in its wisdom, were to recognise the concept
of   withdrawals   or   modifications   to   a   resolution   plan   after   it   has
been   submitted   to   the   adjudicating   authority,   it   must   specifically
provide for a tether under IBC and/or the Regulations . This tether
must   be   coupled   with   directions   on   narrowly   defined   grounds   on
which   such   actions   are   permissible   and   procedural   directions,
which   may   include   the   timelines   in   which   they   can   be   proposed,
voting requirements and threshold for approval by the CoC (as the
case   may   be).   They   must   also   contemplate   at   which   stage   the
corporate   debtor   may   be   sent   into   liquidation   by   the   adjudicating
authority   or   otherwise,   in   the   event   of   a   failed   negotiation   for
modification   and/or   withdrawal.   These   are   matters   for   legislative
policy.”
[emphasis supplied]
26. In   other   words,   in   terms   of   the   approved   Resolution   Plan,   it
was   the   perpetual   exclusive   right   to   use   the   brands,   namely,
“Deccan Chronicle” and “Andhra Bhoomi”, by the Corporate Debtor
which   were   available   to   SRA   i.e.   the   appellant   herein   and   once   it
has been approved by the adjudicating authority, certainly the right
to   exclusive   use   of   the   trademarks   belonging   to   the   Corporate
Debtor, on being approved by the adjudicating authority, is always
available to the SRA i.e. the appellant, but not the ownership rights
of the trademarks of the Corporate Debtor.  
27. Consequently,   the   appeal   is   devoid   of   substance   and
accordingly dismissed.  No costs.
28. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
18

C.A. No.8323 of 2022  (Vision India Fund ­ SREI Multiple Asset 
Investment Trust v. IDBI Bank and Others)
29. Mr. K.V. Viswanathan, learned senior counsel, made a limited
submission that since a finding has been recorded in para 28 of the
judgment impugned dated 2 nd
  September, 2022 that the Resolution
Plan   stands   approved   by   the   adjudicating   authority   and   which   is
the   subject   matter   of   challenge   at   the   instance   of   the   appellant   in
the   connected   appeal   that  may   affect   his   right   and   for   this   limited
purpose, he has filed the instant appeal.  
30. The   apprehension   shown   by   the   appellant’s   counsel   is
misplaced.
31. In the light of the judgment passed by us today in Civil Appeal
No.1706 of 2023, the present appeal has become infructuous.  
32. The appeal is dismissed as having become infructuous.
33. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
C.A. No.8132 of 2022   (IDBI Bank v. Mamta  Binani & Others)
34. We have heard the counsel for the parties.  
19

35. The   appellant   is   a   member   of   Committee   of   Creditors   and   a
financial   creditor   of   Deccan   Chronicle   Holdings   (Corporate   Debtor)
having   6.71%   of   the   total   outstanding   admitted   financial   debt
against the Corporate Debtor and after compliance of Section 30(3),
the Resolution Plan has been approved by the CoC by a majority of
81.39% votes. 
36. It   has   come   on   record   that   the   appellant   admittedly   did   not
challenge   the   approved   Resolution   Plan   before   the   appellate
authority   and   once   the   Resolution   Plan   was   approved   by   the   CoC
and   by   the   adjudicating   authority   (NCLT),   that   has   rightly   non­
suited   the   claim   of   the   appellant,   as   prayed   for   under   the   order
impugned dated 2 nd
 September, 2022.  
37. We   find   no   reason   to   interfere   in   the   order   impugned.     The
appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
38. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
…………………………….J.
(AJAY RASTOGI)
…………………………….J.
(BELA M. TRIVEDI)
NEW DELHI;
MARCH 17, 2023.  
20