case. The decision in the case of Oriental Bank of Commerce (Supra), deals with the CIRP process in which the non- cooperative suspended Board was held to be acting in a malfide manner and liquidation process was not involved.. Furthermore,there was no occasion for NCLAT to deal with the interpretation of Regulation 31-A of LP Regulations, 2016 in this order. Similarly, the issue involved in the Maharashtra Seamless Limited (Supra) is whether the resolution plan value has to meet the liquidation value and whether the commercial wisdom of CoC during CIRP can be interfered with by the Adjudicating Authority. In the case of Duncans Industries Limited (Supra), the issue of challenge of valuation arrived at for the purpose of stamp duty was before the writ court. Lastly, Satnam Agri Products Limited (Supra) does not directly deal with the issue of sharing of valuation reports with the Members of Stakeholders’ Consultation Committee. 11. In view of the above discussions, this Bench holds that to enable a Member of Stakeholders’ Consultation Committee to meet the mandate under Regulations 31-A(1) and as laid down in 31-A(5), the copy of the valuation report needs to be shared with the applicant i.e. Member of Stakeholders’ Consultation Committee, as the same would be crucial in determining the reserve price of the asset of the corporate debtor. Regarding confidentiality of the document, the Liquidator can take an undertaking from the applicant to maintain the same as per his powers under Regulation 7(2)(h) of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Professionals) Regulations, 2016, read with paragraph 21 of First Schedule thereto. This could be in the form of a non-disclosure agreement in which Liquidator could be indemnified in case information was not kept strictly confidential.
