Tribunal grants Appellant right to object to Resolution Plan approval

The appeal was disposed of by the Tribunal, granting the Appellant liberty to raise objections regarding the approval of the Resolution Plan during the Adjudicating Authority's consideration. The Tribunal noted the rejection of the initial application due to the absence of the Appellant and the subsequent request's dismissal for lack of locus and merit. The Tribunal did not entertain the appeal at that stage, emphasizing that the Application for approval of the Resolution Plan was pending before the Adjudicating Authority. The Appellant was allowed to file objections to the approved plan by the following day.

---

---

Issues:
Appeal against rejection of two applications seeking to set aside communication and revive application - Locus standi of the appellant questioned - Objections raised against approval of successful resolution plan - Delay in filing application - Withdrawal of Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) and Bank Guarantees - Consideration of application for approval of resolution plan by Adjudicating Authority.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an appeal filed against the rejection of two applications by the Appellant. The first application, I.A. No. 406 of 2022, sought to set aside communications issued by the Resolution Professional rejecting the Appellant's request to submit a Revised Resolution Plan. The second application, I.A. No. 491 of 2022, aimed to revive the initial application but was also rejected. The Appellant, an unsuccessful Resolution Applicant, challenged these rejections in the appeal.

During the proceedings, the Appellant's Senior Advocate argued that substantial grounds were raised in the application to challenge the approval of the successful resolution plan, highlighting that a member of the Committee of Creditors was a related party. On the other hand, the Respondent's Senior Advocate contended that the Resolution Plan had been approved by the Committee of Creditors much earlier, and the Appellant was aware of this approval as evidenced by correspondence. Additionally, it was pointed out that the Appellant had delayed filing the application and had withdrawn the EMD and Bank Guarantees.

Upon considering the submissions and records, the Tribunal noted that the initial application was rejected in the absence of the Appellant and the subsequent request to revive it was dismissed due to lack of locus and merit. Notably, the Tribunal observed that the rejection order did not provide reasons for questioning the Appellant's locus. The Tribunal also acknowledged that the Application for approval of the Resolution Plan was scheduled before the Adjudicating Authority, suggesting that the appeal need not be entertained at that stage.

The Tribunal decided to dispose of the appeal, granting liberty to the Appellant to raise objections regarding the approval of the Resolution Plan during the Adjudicating Authority's consideration. It was clarified that the Tribunal was not expressing any opinion on the appeal's merits. Furthermore, while I.A. No. 406 of 2022 was not being revived, the Appellant was given the liberty to file objections to the approved plan by the following day before the Adjudicating Authority.

---