2024 (12) TMI 1200 - AT - IBC

Rejection of intervention application filed for the purposes of approval of the Resolution Plan under Section 30 of I B Code - Applicant/Appellant herein had participated and has been determined as to be an unsuccessful Resolution Applicant - locus standi to become a party to the proceedings - Impleadment of M/s Lulu International Shopping Malls Private Limited. Rejection of Intervention Application - HELD THAT - The Applicant himself was admittedly determined as be an unsuccessful Resolution Applicant. The rejection of the of the intervention Application was rightly made because the Appellant was not even required to be heard even at the consideration of approval of the stage when the Resolution Plan is placed before the Ld. Adjudicating Authority for its approval. Rejection of application filed for the purposes of approval of the Resolution Plan under Section 30 of I B Code - HELD THAT - As far as, the aspect pertaining to Section 30 (2) of I B Code, it would be absolutely falling within the domain of the learned Adjudicating Authority to determine as to whether the approved Resolution Plan by the COC falls to be within the parameters prescribed therein, as that contained in clause A B of Section 30(2). Ensuring the satisfaction of those conditions is a prerogative of the tribunal and not a right of the Appellant to ensure its compliance, particularly when the plan of the has Appellant already been rejected as their rights are not at all to be affected at the stage when the mechanism prescribed under section 53 of I B Code, was to be resorted to. Hence the appeal lacks merit and the same would stand dismissed. Impleadment of M/s Lulu International Shopping Malls Private Limited - HELD THAT - Having considered the fact that the plan already stands approved and if any orders are likely to be passed in the instant appeal their rights are likely to be affected, the IA No. 1195/2024, would stand allowed, the applicant intervener M/s Lulu International shopping malls Private Limited, is being permitted to intervene in the appeal. The Appellant herein, who is also the appellant of the appeal already decided by the aforesaid part of today's judgment who has put a challenge to the order passed on IA No. 1229/2024, as rendered in CP(IB)No. 296/7/HDB/2022. The factual part as far as the instant appeal is concerned, the same will remain similar up to the stage of filing of the application IA No.1229/2024, preferred by the appellant who has already been dealt with the above, and has been determined as to be an unsuccessful Resolution Applicant and whose Intervention Application has been rejected. Owing to the fact that the Appellant's Intervention Application has been rejected and its rejection has been affirmed by the Judgment rendered in Company Appeal AT CH (Ins) No. 342/2024 as decided today the limited question which would be required to be venture is as to whether, at all the Company Appeal AT CH (Ins) No. 343/2024, preferred by the Appellant whose intervention has been rejected as against the decision rendered on IA No. 1229/2024, could at all put a challenge to the process of approval of the Resolution Plan, is to the effect that since the appellant has got no locus standi and their Intervention Application has already been rejected. As such the relief sought for in IA No. 1229/2024, as against the approval of the Resolution Plan, it as stood submitted by the newly impleaded Respondent M/s Lulu International shopping malls Private Limited, the same cannot be questioned by the present appellant hence the appeal at their behest as against the process of the approval of the Resolution Plan would not be tenable the same would too stand dismissed. The revised plan submitted by the Appellant has been rejected and the rejection of the plan has not been challenged has attained finality, has no locus to agitate a cause by intervention or by challenging approval of Resolution Plan - Since the Resolution Plan of the Appellant has been rejected, he has no locus standi to either intervene or to put a challenge to the process of the approval of the Resolution Plan granted in favour of M/s Lulu International shopping malls Private Limited. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Rejection of Intervention Application in Company Appeal (AT)(CH)(Ins) No. 342/2024
2. Challenge to the approval process of the Resolution Plan by the Appellant
3. Impleadment of M/s Lulu International Shopping Malls Private Limited in Company Appeal (AT)(CH)(Ins) No. 343/2023

Analysis:

1. In Company Appeal (AT)(CH)(Ins) No. 342/2024, the Appellant's Intervention Application was rejected as they were deemed an unsuccessful Resolution Applicant. The Appellant had participated in the Resolution Process but was determined to have no locus standi to become a party for the Resolution Plan approval under Section 30 of I & B Code. Despite submitting a Revised Resolution Plan, it was rejected by the Committee of Creditors, and the Resolution Plan of M/s Lulu International Shopping Malls Private Limited was approved. The Tribunal held that since the rejection of the Intervention Application was final and unchallenged, the Appellant had no legally enforceable right to challenge the approval process or seek impleadment.

2. The Appellant in Company Appeal (AT)(CH)(Ins) No. 342/2024 sought to challenge the approval process of the Resolution Plan by filing an appeal. However, since their Revised Resolution Plan was rejected, and they were not considered a successful Resolution Applicant, the Tribunal ruled that the Appellant lacked the necessary standing to intervene or challenge the Resolution Plan approval process. The Tribunal emphasized that the Appellant's rights were not affected at the stage of Resolution Plan approval, as their plan had already been rejected.

3. In Company Appeal (AT)(CH)(Ins) No. 343/2023, M/s Lulu International Shopping Malls Private Limited sought impleadment as a successful Resolution Applicant. The Tribunal allowed their intervention as their Resolution Plan had been approved. The Appellant in this appeal had also been deemed an unsuccessful Resolution Applicant, and their Intervention Application had been rejected. The Tribunal concluded that since the Appellant had no standing or locus to challenge the Resolution Plan approval process, their appeal against the approval of M/s Lulu International Shopping Malls Private Limited's plan was not tenable and was dismissed.

In summary, the Appeals lacked merit as the Appellants had no standing to challenge the Resolution Plan approval process due to the rejection of their Revised Resolution Plans and Intervention Applications. The Tribunal affirmed that the rejection of the Intervention Applications had finality, and the Appellants were not considered aggrieved parties with the right to challenge the Resolution Plan approval. Therefore, the Appeals were dismissed based on the lack of standing and merit.