Tribunal grants partial relief, orders disclosure of decisions on applicant eligibility.

The tribunal allowed the applications in part, directing the Resolution Professional to provide the applicants with copies of his decisions regarding the eligibility of Tata Steel Limited and Vedanta Limited, along with supporting reasons. The applicants were permitted to submit further objections, to be presented to the Committee of Creditors for consideration. The tribunal emphasized transparency and objectivity in the Resolution Professional's conduct and the CoC's responsibility to ensure the eligibility of Resolution Applicants under Section 29A of the Code.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility of Tata Steel Limited to submit a Resolution Plan under Section 29A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
2. Eligibility of Vedanta Limited to submit a Resolution Plan under Section 29A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
3. Jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Authority to entertain applications challenging the decisions of the Resolution Professional before the Committee of Creditors (CoC) approves the Resolution Plan.
4. Obligation of the Resolution Professional to communicate decisions regarding the eligibility of Resolution Applicants to the objectors.
5. Duty of the Adjudicating Authority to decide on the eligibility of Resolution Applicants under Section 29A of the Code.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Eligibility of Tata Steel Limited:
The applicant, Renaissance Steel India Private Limited, contended that Tata Steel Limited was ineligible to submit a Resolution Plan under clauses (d), (i), and (j) of Section 29A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The ineligibility was based on the conviction of Tata Steel UK Limited, a 100% subsidiary of Tata Steel Limited, by the UK Government under the Health and Safety at Work Act, 1974. The applicant argued that the penalty and conviction of Tata Steel UK Limited should disqualify Tata Steel Limited from submitting a Resolution Plan.

2. Eligibility of Vedanta Limited:
The applicant also challenged the eligibility of Vedanta Limited under the same clauses of Section 29A. The contention was based on the conviction of Konkola Copper Mines (KCM), a subsidiary of Vedanta Resources Plc (which holds a significant equity stake in Vedanta Limited), by the Government of Zambia for environmental violations. The applicant produced evidence showing that KCM was convicted and fined for multiple offenses under the Environmental Protection and Pollution Control Act of Zambia.

3. Jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Authority:
The Resolution Professional (RP) and respondents argued that the applications were premature and not maintainable since the Resolution Plans had not yet been approved by the CoC. They contended that any challenge to the Resolution Plans should be made only after the CoC's approval and submission to the Adjudicating Authority under Section 31 of the Code. However, the tribunal held that the applications were maintainable under Section 60(5)(c) of the Code, which allows the Adjudicating Authority to decide on any question of law or facts arising out of or in relation to the insolvency resolution process.

4. Obligation of the Resolution Professional:
The tribunal found that the RP had not adequately communicated his decisions regarding the eligibility of Tata Steel Limited and Vedanta Limited to the objectors. The RP's failure to provide reasons and supporting documents for his decisions was seen as a lapse in his duty. The tribunal emphasized that the RP must act with objectivity and maintain written records of his decisions and the evidence supporting them, as per the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Professional) Regulations, 2016.

5. Duty of the Adjudicating Authority:
The tribunal concluded that it was not within its purview to decide on the eligibility of the Resolution Applicants directly. Instead, it directed the RP to communicate his decisions and the reasons for them to the applicants, allowing them to submit further objections. The RP was then instructed to present these objections and supporting documents to the CoC for independent consideration as per the proviso to Section 30(4) of the Code.

Conclusion:
The tribunal allowed the applications in part, directing the RP to provide the applicants with copies of his decisions regarding the eligibility of Tata Steel Limited and Vedanta Limited, along with supporting reasons. The applicants were permitted to submit further objections, which the RP was to present to the CoC for consideration. The tribunal emphasized the importance of transparency and objectivity in the RP's conduct and the CoC's responsibility to ensure the eligibility of Resolution Applicants under Section 29A of the Code.

---