In this case, appellant’s proposal for modification/amendment of the resolution plan was declined by the resolution professional and thereupon, the appellant approached the adjudicating authority by filing an IA. Adjudicating authority passed the order dt. 13-12-2021 granting the prayer of the appellant but, at the same time, correspondingly allowed the other resolution applicant to place any modification in their submitted resolution plan before the CoC as well. On a perusal of the order dt. 13-12-2021, held, that certain key features/stipulations of the resolution plan were sought to be amended by the appellant and whether it was done in response to the requirement of the CoC or otherwise, the fact of the matter remained that there was going to be modification of the relevant terms of the resolution plan of the appellant. Further, when that was being permitted at the request of the appellant himself, no fault could be found inthe adjudicating authority having passed an order so as to balance the position of the respective parties and to provide a level playing field by granting corresponding permission to the other resolution applicant to place its modification for consideration of CoC. Also, so far as the factor relating to divulging of the contents of the plan was concerned, the same had been of the making of the appellant himself. If the appellant had chosen to divulge/disclose the terms of its resolution plan before the adjudicating authority, there had not been any fault on the part of the resolution professional or the CoC or the other resolution applicant. Para 13-16
[Ajay Gupta v. Pramod Kumar Sharma, (2022) 6 SCC 86]