9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (12) TMI 536 - AT - IBCApplication for prayer to set aside the order of admitting the Corporate Debtor into CIRP proceedings under Section 7 of I B Code - Section 7 application was preferred with malicious intention or not - allegation of malice and fraud - appeal against the approved Resolution Plan - HELD THAT - Since the Resolution Plan itself which has been approved by the Impugned Order dated 28.05.2024 satisfies the test of Section 30(2) to be read with Section 30(6) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code and since it does not suffer from any defect which could be at all be agitated by the Appellant when he himself has independently agitated the proceedings under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, the Appeal is held to be devoid of merit and the same is accordingly rejected. Appeal dismissed.
Issues:
1. Consideration of application by Adjudicating Authority claiming malicious intention in CIRP proceedings under Section 7 of I & B Code. 2. Approval of Resolution Plan and rejection of application challenging the same. 3. Challenge to the approval of Resolution Plan in IA No.7/2024. 4. Dismissal of appeals challenging rejection of Section 7 application and approval of Resolution Plan. 5. Relevance of a specific judgment in the present case. 6. Merit of the appeal against the approved Resolution Plan. Analysis: 1. The Appellant had filed an application challenging the admission of the Corporate Debtor into CIRP proceedings under Section 7 of the I & B Code, alleging malicious intention. The Adjudicating Authority rejected the application, noting the absence of material supporting the claims of malice and fraud. The Authority approved the Resolution Plan, emphasizing its compliance with relevant provisions and the eligibility of the Resolution Applicant. 2. The decision on the application was challenged in a previous appeal, which was subsequently dismissed by the Tribunal. The Appellant, dissatisfied with the rejection of the application and approval of the Resolution Plan, approached the Tribunal again. The Appellant argued that the Resolution Plan approval did not consider material facts from the earlier application. However, the Adjudicating Authority had thoroughly examined the grounds raised by the Appellant in various applications during the CIRP. 3. The Appellant cited a specific judgment but was informed that it was not directly relevant to the present case due to factual differences. The Tribunal emphasized that the approved Resolution Plan met the requirements of the I & B Code and did not have any defects that could be raised by the Appellant, who had previously participated in the CIRP proceedings. 4. Previous appeals challenging the rejection of the Section 7 application and the approval of the Resolution Plan were dismissed by the Tribunal. The Appellant's participation in the CIRP, submission of claims, and the approval of the Resolution Plan were considered in these dismissals. 5. The Tribunal rejected the Appellant's current appeal, stating that the approved Resolution Plan satisfied the statutory requirements and was not flawed. The appeal was deemed meritless, considering the Appellant's prior involvement in the CIRP proceedings and the approval of the Resolution Plan. This detailed analysis highlights the progression of legal proceedings, the reasoning behind the decisions made, and the Tribunal's assessment of the Appellant's claims and challenges.
|
