9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (3) TMI 1411 - AT - Insolvency and BankruptcySeeking grant of relief to file main appeal - Approval of Resolution Plan - privy to resolution Plan - Petitioner/Appellant submit that he is a Third Party, to the impugned order passed by the Adjudicating Authority (Tribunal) - also, Prospective Resolution Applicants, who had suffered, due to the 'Resolution Process' - HELD THAT - This Tribunal keeping in mind of a vital fact that the Petitioner/Appellant, being an Unsuccessful Resolution Applicant, has no Locus, to assail a Resolution Plan or its implementation, coupled with a candid fact that he is not a Stakeholder, as per Section 31 (1) of the I B Code, 2016, in relation to the Corporate Debtor, this Tribunal, without any haziness, holds that the Petitioner/Appellant, is not an Aggrieved Person, coming within the ambit of Section 61 (1) of the I B Code, 2016, especially, when he is not a Privy, to the Resolution Plan. Application dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Petitioner/Appellant, as an Unsuccessful Resolution Applicant, has the locus standi to challenge the approval of the Resolution Plan. 2. Whether the Petitioner/Appellant is a Stakeholder or Aggrieved Person under the I & B Code, 2016. 3. Whether the Resolution Plan was implemented in accordance with the I & B Code, 2016. Summary: Issue 1: Locus Standi of the Petitioner/Appellant The Petitioner/Appellant, an Unsuccessful Resolution Applicant, sought permission from the Tribunal to file an appeal against the Impugned Order dated 03.02.2023, which approved the Resolution Plan submitted by the 2nd Respondent. The Petitioner/Appellant argued that he had a vested interest in pursuing the appeal as he had suffered due to the Resolution Process. However, the 1st Respondent contended that the Petitioner/Appellant had no locus standi to question the approval granted by the Adjudicating Authority, as he was not a Stakeholder within the meaning of Section 31(1) of the I & B Code, 2016. The Tribunal held that the Petitioner/Appellant, being an Unsuccessful Resolution Applicant, had no locus to assail the Resolution Plan or its implementation. Issue 2: Stakeholder or Aggrieved Person The 1st Respondent argued that the Petitioner/Appellant was not a Stakeholder or Aggrieved Person under Section 61 of the I & B Code, 2016, and hence, could not challenge the Resolution Plan. The Tribunal agreed with this contention, stating that the Petitioner/Appellant was not a Privy to the Resolution Plan and thus was not an Aggrieved Person within the ambit of Section 61(1) of the I & B Code, 2016. The Tribunal emphasized that the Petitioner/Appellant was not entitled to prefer the appeal as he was not a Stakeholder in relation to the Corporate Debtor. Issue 3: Implementation of the Resolution Plan The 2nd Respondent contended that the Resolution Plan was approved by about 97% of the Committee of Creditors of Vasan Health Care Private Ltd. and was implemented accordingly. The Tribunal noted that the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process had concluded on 10.03.2022, and any attempt to rewind the process and vote on the Resolution Plan again was impermissible. The Tribunal further observed that the Petitioner/Appellant had participated in the revision process of the Resolution Plan and was precluded from challenging the selection process later. Result: The Tribunal dismissed IA No. 215 of 2023 in Comp. App (AT) (CH) (INS.) No. 58 of 2023, stating that the Petitioner/Appellant lacked merits. Consequently, the main Comp. App (AT) (CH) (INS.) No. 58 of 2023 was not entertained and was rejected. The connected pending IA Nos. 213 and 214 of 2023 were closed.
|
