2022 (2) TMI 1247 - SCH - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Grant of permission to the applicant-appellant to maintain this appeal - amendment in resolution plan - HELD THAT - The grievance projected in the said appeal by one of the resolution applicants in the corporate insolvency resolution process was essentially concerning its resolution plan and consideration thereof by the Committee of Creditors. Looking to the nature of grievance so raised and the nature of order passed by NCLAT, there are no reason found to accede locus to the erstwhile Director of corporate debtor to maintain this appeal. The application seeking permission to file appeal stands rejected - Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Permission to maintain appeal against NCLAT order on resolution plan amendment by resolution applicants.

Analysis:
The Supreme Court, comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vikram Nath, considered the application seeking permission to maintain an appeal against the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) order in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 35 of 2022. The NCLAT order dated 13th January, 2022, was challenged by one of the resolution applicants regarding the amendment of the resolution plan. The applicant-appellant was aggrieved by the process allowed by the Adjudicating Authority, National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Allahabad Bench, in its order dated 13th December, 2021. This order permitted both the said resolution applicant and another resolution applicant to amend their respective resolution plans.

The Supreme Court emphasized that the appeal before the NCLAT primarily concerned the resolution plan and its consideration by the Committee of Creditors. Given the nature of the grievance raised by one of the resolution applicants in the corporate insolvency resolution process, the Court found no justification to grant locus standi to the former Director of the corporate debtor to pursue the appeal. Consequently, the application seeking permission to file the appeal (I.A. No. 14113 of 2022) was rejected, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. Additionally, all other pending applications were disposed of by the Court.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court, after examining the material on record and hearing the arguments, concluded that there were no grounds to permit the applicant-appellant to maintain the appeal against the NCLAT order. The Court's decision was based on the specific nature of the grievance related to the resolution plan amendment process and the involvement of multiple resolution applicants in the corporate insolvency resolution proceedings.