2023 (2) TMI 1247 - AT - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Resolution Plan was filed by Resolution Professional for consideration before the Adjudicating Authority - Approval under Section 31(4) proviso of the I B Code has not yet been obtained from Competition Commission of India - HELD THAT - The Adjudicating Authority relying on three member bench judgment of this Appellate Tribunal in Arcelormittal India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Abhijit Guhathakurta, 2020 (1) TMI 277 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI and another three member bench judgment in Makalu Trading Ltd. and Ors. vs. Rajiv Chakraborty and Ors., 2020 (9) TMI 386 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , NEW DELHI has taken the view that it is not mandatory to obtain the approval by the Competition Commission of India prior to approval by CoC and the same can be obtained during pendency of the application for approval pending before the Adjudicating Authority. The Adjudicating Authority rejected the Intervention Application filed by the Appellant holding that Appellant has no locus relying on its earlier order passed on 22.09.2022. Learned counsel for the Respondent No.1 and 2 submits that the issue as to whether the approval under Section 31(4) proviso is necessary/mandatory or not has already been heard by the Adjudicating Authority in Intervention Application of other stakeholder and order has been reserved on 09.02.2023. Respondent No.4 also adopted the submissions of Respondent No.1. There are no reason to enter into the issue as the said issue has already been reserved for consideration before the Adjudicating Authority. Appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Rejection of Intervention Application in Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process due to lack of Competition Commission of India approval under Section 31(4) proviso of the I&B Code.
2. Consideration of locus standi of the Appellant in the appeal.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against the rejection of the Intervention Application by the Adjudicating Authority in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process of a company. The Appellant, a syndicate, contended that the approval under Section 31(4) proviso of the I&B Code from the Competition Commission of India was necessary before approving the resolution plan. However, the Adjudicating Authority, citing precedents, held that such approval could be obtained during the pendency of the application for approval. The Authority rejected the Intervention Application, stating that the Appellant had no locus, referring to a previous order. The Respondents supported this view, mentioning that a similar issue was already being considered by the Authority in another case.

2. The Adjudicating Authority, considering that the issue of the necessity of Section 31(4) proviso approval had already been reserved for consideration, declined to delve into this matter further. Similarly, regarding the issue of locus standi raised by the Appellant, the Authority refrained from providing a finding as the relevant issues had already been heard and an order reserved. Consequently, the Appellate Tribunal found no reason to entertain the Appeal at that stage and disposed of it accordingly.