9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (5) TMI 317 - Tri - Insolvency and BankruptcySeeking of hearing - unsuccessful Resolution Applicant claims that they are not only a necessary party but also a proper party and is required to be heard while disposing of application for approval of Resolution Plan - HELD THAT - The Supreme Court in various judgments has noted that a view has to be taken on a liberal side. This Adjudicating Authority is not hesitant to say that the unsuccessful Resolution Applicant i.e. Applicant is not only a necessary party but also a proper party for adjudication of the lis involved between the parties. It is not out of place to mention that this Bench has a doubt on the legal point whether an Asset Reconstruction Company can be a Resolution Applicant or not. This aspect of question of law can also be cleared by the unsuccessful Resolution Applicant or any person once they are impleaded as a party apart from various other issues with regard to the approval of the resolution plan by the CoC and its minutes can also be brought on record for perusal of the Adjudicating Authority at the time of approval of the Resolution Plan. Application allowed by impleading the Applicant as proper and necessary party - List TA No. 537/2020 on 05.05.2021.
Issues:
Impleadment of unsuccessful Resolution Applicant in IA No. 537/2020 for approval of Resolution Plan. Analysis: The unsuccessful Resolution Applicant filed an application under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 to be impleaded into IA No. 537/2020, claiming to be a necessary and proper party for the approval of the Resolution Plan submitted in IA No. 281/2019. The Applicant alleged that their claim was arbitrarily rejected by the Committee of Creditors (CoC), and the Successful Resolution Applicant made changes to the plan with violations, making it essential for the unsuccessful Resolution Applicant to be heard. The Respondent, Successful Resolution Applicant, contended that the Applicant was not a necessary party as their claim had been rejected previously, and the Appellate Tribunal had clarified that the unsuccessful Resolution Applicant could challenge the plan only after its approval. However, the Adjudicating Authority interpreted the Appellate Tribunal's order differently, allowing dissatisfied parties to move the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) before the approval or rejection of the plan, leading to the possibility of impleading the unsuccessful Resolution Applicant. The Adjudicating Authority emphasized that there was no bar for the unsuccessful Resolution Applicant to be impleaded in IA No. 537/2020, as they would be affected by the Authority's orders and could shed light on issues related to the CoC's approval of the resolution plan. Referring to Supreme Court judgments advocating a liberal approach, the Authority deemed the unsuccessful Resolution Applicant a necessary and proper party for the resolution of the dispute. Moreover, the Authority expressed doubt regarding whether an Asset Reconstruction Company could be a Resolution Applicant, a legal point that could be clarified by the unsuccessful Resolution Applicant once impleaded. The impleadment of the Applicant was deemed crucial for addressing various issues surrounding the approval of the resolution plan and the CoC's decisions, ensuring a comprehensive adjudication of the matter. Therefore, the Adjudicating Authority allowed the impleadment of the Applicant as a proper and necessary party in IA No. 537/2020, enabling their participation in the proceedings for a thorough examination of the issues at hand.
|
