Resolution Applicant Directed to Submit Documents for Section 29A Status Determination

The National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata Bench, directed a resolution applicant to submit necessary documents to determine their status under Section 29A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code after their expression of interest was unjustly rejected. The Tribunal clarified that the approval or rejection of Resolution Plans rests with the Committee of Creditors, emphasizing adherence to procedural requirements. The judgment underscored the importance of due process and the exclusive authority of the Committee of Creditors in evaluating Resolution Plans.

---

---

Issues:
- Rejection of expression of interest without reason
- Consideration of applicant under Section 29A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code
- Submission of required documents by the resolution applicant
- Authority of Committee of Creditors in approving or rejecting Resolution Plans

Analysis:
The judgment by the National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata Bench, dealt with the application filed by a resolution applicant whose expression of interest was rejected without providing any reason. The Resolution Professional (RP) and Counsels representing various parties were present during the hearing. The RP based the rejection on a CIBIL report that listed one of the subsidiary companies of the resolution applicant as a willful defaulter. However, the resolution applicant contended that they were not a defaulter falling under Section 29A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. Subsequently, a letter from the State Bank of India was presented during the hearing, confirming that no dues were outstanding from the resolution applicant. The Tribunal, considering this new information, directed the resolution applicant to submit all necessary documents to the RP to determine their status under Section 29A and to present Resolution Plans to the Committee of Creditors for evaluation.

The judgment emphasized that the approval or rejection of a Resolution Plan falls within the purview of the Committee of Creditors, and the Resolution Professional does not have the authority to reject any Plan without the Committee's decision. This underscores the importance of adherence to the procedures outlined in the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Tribunal also instructed that an urgent certified copy of the order would be issued upon completion of formalities, and scheduled a further hearing for any additional matters on a specified date.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the issues of unjustified rejection of an expression of interest, the application of Section 29A to determine the status of the resolution applicant, the necessity of submitting required documents for evaluation, and the exclusive authority of the Committee of Creditors in approving or rejecting Resolution Plans. The decision highlighted the significance of following due process and respecting the roles assigned to different parties involved in the insolvency resolution process.

---