Appeal Dismissed: Intervention Rejection in Corporate Insolvency Process Stands, No Grounds for Entertaining Appeal.

The Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal concerning the rejection of an Intervention Application in a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process. The Appellant argued that approval from the Competition Commission of India under Section 31(4) proviso of the I&B Code was required before approving the resolution plan. The Adjudicating Authority held that such approval could be obtained during the pendency of the application and rejected the Intervention Application, citing lack of locus standi for the Appellant. The Tribunal found no grounds to entertain the appeal, as related issues were already under consideration, and disposed of it.

---

---

Issues:
1. Rejection of Intervention Application in Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process due to lack of Competition Commission of India approval under Section 31(4) proviso of the I&B Code.
2. Consideration of locus standi of the Appellant in the appeal.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against the rejection of the Intervention Application by the Adjudicating Authority in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process of a company. The Appellant, a syndicate, contended that the approval under Section 31(4) proviso of the I&B Code from the Competition Commission of India was necessary before approving the resolution plan. However, the Adjudicating Authority, citing precedents, held that such approval could be obtained during the pendency of the application for approval. The Authority rejected the Intervention Application, stating that the Appellant had no locus, referring to a previous order. The Respondents supported this view, mentioning that a similar issue was already being considered by the Authority in another case.

2. The Adjudicating Authority, considering that the issue of the necessity of Section 31(4) proviso approval had already been reserved for consideration, declined to delve into this matter further. Similarly, regarding the issue of locus standi raised by the Appellant, the Authority refrained from providing a finding as the relevant issues had already been heard and an order reserved. Consequently, the Appellate Tribunal found no reason to entertain the Appeal at that stage and disposed of it accordingly.

---