2022 (8) TMI 1375 - AT - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Rejection of prayer to allow him to submit a Revised Resolution Plan - request of the Appellant to revive the Application was subsequently rejected on the ground of no locus and no merit - HELD THAT - From the facts brought on record, it does appear that Application was filed by the Appellant i.e. I.A. No. 406 of 2022 in March, 2022 however the said Application was firstly rejected in his absence and secondly on an request to revive the Application the same was dismissed on the ground of no locus and holding that there is no merit. No reasons have been given in the Order impugned as to how the Appellant has no locus. When the Application for approval of the Resolution Plan is under consideration before the Adjudicating Authority this Appeal need not be entertained. End of Justice be served giving liberty to the Appellant to raise his objections regarding the approval of the Resolution Plan which may be heard by the Adjudicating Authority while considering the Application for approval of the Resolution Plan in accordance with law - it is made clear that no opinion on the merits of the Appeal is given. Appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against rejection of two applications seeking to set aside communication and revive application - Locus standi of the appellant questioned - Objections raised against approval of successful resolution plan - Delay in filing application - Withdrawal of Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) and Bank Guarantees - Consideration of application for approval of resolution plan by Adjudicating Authority.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an appeal filed against the rejection of two applications by the Appellant. The first application, I.A. No. 406 of 2022, sought to set aside communications issued by the Resolution Professional rejecting the Appellant's request to submit a Revised Resolution Plan. The second application, I.A. No. 491 of 2022, aimed to revive the initial application but was also rejected. The Appellant, an unsuccessful Resolution Applicant, challenged these rejections in the appeal.

During the proceedings, the Appellant's Senior Advocate argued that substantial grounds were raised in the application to challenge the approval of the successful resolution plan, highlighting that a member of the Committee of Creditors was a related party. On the other hand, the Respondent's Senior Advocate contended that the Resolution Plan had been approved by the Committee of Creditors much earlier, and the Appellant was aware of this approval as evidenced by correspondence. Additionally, it was pointed out that the Appellant had delayed filing the application and had withdrawn the EMD and Bank Guarantees.

Upon considering the submissions and records, the Tribunal noted that the initial application was rejected in the absence of the Appellant and the subsequent request to revive it was dismissed due to lack of locus and merit. Notably, the Tribunal observed that the rejection order did not provide reasons for questioning the Appellant's locus. The Tribunal also acknowledged that the Application for approval of the Resolution Plan was scheduled before the Adjudicating Authority, suggesting that the appeal need not be entertained at that stage.

The Tribunal decided to dispose of the appeal, granting liberty to the Appellant to raise objections regarding the approval of the Resolution Plan during the Adjudicating Authority's consideration. It was clarified that the Tribunal was not expressing any opinion on the appeal's merits. Furthermore, while I.A. No. 406 of 2022 was not being revived, the Appellant was given the liberty to file objections to the approved plan by the following day before the Adjudicating Authority.