TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal rejects Essar Steel's impleadment application under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.</h1> <h3>Essar Steel Asia Holdings Ltd. Versus Satish Kumar Gupta And Others</h3> Essar Steel Asia Holdings Ltd. Versus Satish Kumar Gupta And Others - TMI Issues:1. Maintainability of the application for impleadment in a pending application under section 30 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.2. Consideration of a comprehensive settlement proposal by the applicant.3. Previous disposal of a similar application by the same applicant.4. Application of the principle of res judicata in the present case.Analysis:1. The Tribunal heard arguments from both parties regarding the maintainability and merits of the application for impleadment. The applicant, Essar Steel Asia Holding Ltd., sought to be impleaded in a pending application (I. A. No. 431 of 2018) related to the approval of a resolution plan under section 30 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.2. The applicant presented a comprehensive settlement proposal on October 25, 2018, aiming to settle a debt amount higher than the resolution plan approved by the Committee of Creditors (CoC). The resolution plan was under consideration for approval by the Adjudicating Authority.3. It was noted that a previous application (I. A. No. 430 of 2018) on the same subject matter was filed by the same applicant and had been disposed of by the Bench. The earlier order highlighted that shareholders of a corporate debtor may not be considered participants in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP).4. Referring to the previous order and the principle of res judicata, the Tribunal found that the present application by the shareholder of the company was not maintainable. The Tribunal emphasized that the applicant was attempting to re-litigate the same issue to oppose the resolution plan by seeking impleadment, despite the issue already being addressed in the earlier order.5. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the present application on the grounds of res judicata, stating that the issue had already been dealt with in the previous order dated January 29, 2019. The application (I. A. No. 471 of 2018) was disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs being issued.
TaxTMI 