NCLAT Dismisses Challenge To Grainotech's Plan For Resolution Of KSG Sugar.

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at Delhi has recently held that the failure to communicate the individual score and ranking of a resolution applicant does not invalidate the corporate insolvency resolution process.

The Tribunal ruled that the Consortium of Govindrao Sable's objection to the non disclosure of its scorecard did not affect the approval of the successful resolution plan for KGS Sugar and Infra Corporation Private Limited.

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code does not require the Committee of Creditors to share scorecards, and the requirement to communicate individual scores and rankings arose only from the CoC's own evaluation framework. Against this backdrop, the appellate tribunal found that the alleged non communication of these details did not undermine the process.

A Bench of Chairperson Justice Ashok Bhushan and Technical Member Barun Mitra upheld the resolution plan submitted by Grainotch Industries Limited.

In dismissing the appeal, the bench stated that "the submission on which the appellant is challenging the entire process cannot be a ground to set aside the entire process and to hold that process was not in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the regulation or the Resolution Plan Evaluation Process."

The appeal arose from the Consortium of Govindrao Sable's challenge to the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai order dated 1 October 2025 that approved Grainotch's resolution plan for KSG Sugar with 99.86 percent CoC voting.

The consortium argued that under Step IV of the Resolution Plan Evaluation Process, it was entitled to receive its individual scores and ranking but had only been provided its Net Present Value.

Senior advocate P Nagesh submitted that the non disclosure of the complete scorecard prejudiced the appellant in not appropriately revising its plan to match with the SRA and relied on the clause stating that the top three applicants "will be communicated their individual scores and their individual ranking only." He argued that this information was essential during the negotiation rounds.

The tribunal rejected these arguments after recording that all bidders were already aware of the scoring matrix, which assigned 24 marks to Net Present Value and 56 marks to upfront payment. It noted that the consortium offered payment within twelve months while the successful applicant proposed payment within thirty days.

The bench noted that the consortium had taken part in all 27 rounds of negotiations and that the Committee of Creditors had approved the successful plan after exercising its commercial judgment. It further recorded that the consortium was fully aware of the evaluation matrix and had submitted its plan and payment timelines with full knowledge of the criteria.

"We thus are of the view that appellant who was well aware of the matrix for evaluation has consciously given his resolution plan and his timelines and the resolution plan has not been approved and the plan of the SRA has been approved", it noted.

Concluding that the alleged non communication of marks was "inconsequential," the appellate tribunal dismissed the appeal.

Click Here To Read/Download Order