2020 (7) TMI 237 - AT - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Approval of Resolution Plan - validity of public notice dated 18-4-2019 issued by the Resolution Professional - Jurisdiction of issuing public notice - HELD THAT - The Appellant who was an Operational Creditor could not seek intervention after approval of Resolution Plan by the Adjudicating Authority. Admittedly, the Resolution Plan was approved by the Adjudicating Authority on 8-4-2019 and in terms of provision embodied in Section 31(1) of the I B Code the approved Resolution Plan is binding on all stakeholders involved in the Resolution Plan including the 'Creditors'. It is not in dispute that approved Resolution Plan has not been assailed by the Appellant in appeal under section 61 of the I B Code and limitation for filing such appeal has already expired. Thus, the approved Resolution Plan has attained finality and is beyond the pale of challenge at the instance of Appellant - 'Operational Creditor'. It also emerges from the record that the Appellant had all along been represented throughout the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process proceedings as a creditor and it could not lie in his mouth that the proceedings qua the validity or otherwise of the permitted User Agreement of the brand name were conducted behind its back - Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
- Rejection of claims by the Appellant by the Adjudicating Authority
- Appellant's entitlement to use the brand 'Elegant' and 'Family of Marks'
- Jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Authority after approval of the Resolution Plan
- Intervention sought by the Appellant as an Operational Creditor

Analysis:
1. The Adjudicating Authority rejected the claims made by the Appellant, 'M/s Prashant Properties Pvt. Ltd.,' on the basis that the Resolution Plan had already been approved and the Authority had no power to review its decision. The rejection order was part of a composite order passed on 26-2-2020 in CP(IB)No. 595/KB/2017. The Appellant challenged this decision through the instant appeal.

2. The Appellant claimed entitlement to use the brand 'Elegant' and 'Family of Marks' and sought intervention in a pending case. The Adjudicating Authority declined to draw adverse conclusions based on reports against the management of the Corporate Debtor. The Authority held that the application by the Appellant was not maintainable post the approval of the Resolution Plan, stating it lacked jurisdiction to determine any issues related to the Plan after approval.

3. The Appellant argued that the public notice issued by the Resolution Professional before a specific decision was without jurisdiction, and the right to use the trademark 'Elegant' had not passed to the Successful Resolution Applicant. The Respondent contended that the Adjudicating Authority had become functus officio post approval of the Resolution Plan and could not review its decision.

4. After considering arguments from both parties, the Tribunal held that the Appellant, as an Operational Creditor, could not seek intervention post the approval of the Resolution Plan. The approved Plan was binding on all stakeholders, including creditors, as per Section 31(1) of the I&B Code. The Tribunal noted that the Appellant had ample opportunity to participate in the proceedings and that the approved Plan had attained finality, beyond challenge by the Appellant.

5. Consequently, the Tribunal found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it without costs.