Tribunal dismisses bank's applications, upholds CoC decision on resolution plan. Bank directed to pursue claims in separate forum.

The tribunal dismissed M/s. Karur Vysya Bank Ltd.'s applications, finding it not a necessary party to the proceedings and rejecting its impleadment request. The tribunal upheld the CoC's decision to consider the resolution plan by M/s. ArcelorMittal India P. Ltd., as it complied with the Supreme Court's directive. Requests for a stay on proceedings and provision of the resolution plan were denied. The tribunal clarified that the bank could pursue its claims with M/s. KSS Patron P. Ltd. in a suitable forum.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Impleadment of M/s. Karur Vysya Bank Ltd. in the proceedings.
2. Consideration of the resolution plan submitted by M/s. ArcelorMittal India P. Ltd.
3. Stay of further proceedings for approval of any resolution plan.
4. Provision of a copy of the resolution plan and minutes of the meeting to the applicant.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Impleadment of M/s. Karur Vysya Bank Ltd.:
M/s. Karur Vysya Bank Ltd. sought to be impleaded in the proceedings under Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules, 2016, and Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The bank argued that it is a financial creditor of M/s. KSS Patrons P. Ltd., which defaulted on a loan, resulting in an outstanding amount of Rs. 3,43,96,866. The bank issued a recall notice and declared the account as a "non-performing asset" (NPA). However, the tribunal found that M/s. Karur Vysya Bank Ltd. did not approach the resolution professional (RP) and the committee of creditors (CoC) in a timely manner to lodge its claim. The tribunal concluded that the bank is not a necessary party to the present CIRP proceedings nor a creditor of the corporate debtor-company, and thus, the prayer for impleadment was disallowed.

2. Consideration of the Resolution Plan Submitted by M/s. ArcelorMittal India P. Ltd.:
The applicant bank requested the tribunal not to consider the resolution plan submitted by M/s. ArcelorMittal India P. Ltd. until its dues were paid. The tribunal noted that the Supreme Court had given resolution applicants an opportunity to pay off NPAs within two weeks from the date of judgment. M/s. Karur Vysya Bank Ltd. filed its claim on October 19, 2018, after the deadline set by the Supreme Court. The CoC allowed ArcelorMittal to resubmit its resolution plan as it had paid the overdue amount by October 18, 2018. The tribunal found no fault in the CoC's decision and concluded that the applicant's request was not legally sustainable.

3. Stay of Further Proceedings for Approval of Any Resolution Plan:
The applicant sought directions to stay further proceedings for approval of any resolution plan under Section 31 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The tribunal rejected this request, citing the directions issued by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal to conclude the hearing in a time-bound manner. The tribunal emphasized that the hearing had already been concluded, and thus, the prayer for a stay was not tenable.

4. Provision of a Copy of the Resolution Plan and Minutes of the Meeting to the Applicant:
The applicant requested a copy of the resolution plan and the minutes of the meeting approving the resolution plan. The tribunal denied this request, stating that the applicant cannot be termed as a financial creditor to the present corporate debtor, M/s. Essar Steel India Ltd., and its debts do not reach 10 percent of the total payable debts of the corporate debtor. Therefore, the applicant was not entitled to a copy of the resolution plan.

Conclusion:
The tribunal dismissed the applications filed by M/s. Karur Vysya Bank Ltd., stating that the bank did not lodge its claim in a timely manner and was not a necessary party to the proceedings. The tribunal upheld the CoC's decision to consider the resolution plan submitted by M/s. ArcelorMittal India P. Ltd., as it complied with the Supreme Court's judgment. The requests for a stay of proceedings and provision of the resolution plan were also rejected. The tribunal clarified that the applicant bank is at liberty to pursue its claims with M/s. KSS Patron P. Ltd. in an appropriate forum.

---