Appeal found not maintainable due to delay issue condonation, Impleadment Application rejection upheld, and Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code provisions clarified.

The appeal was found to be not maintainable as the delay issue was condoned, the rejection of the Impleadment Application was upheld, and the interpretation of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code provisions was clarified. The court determined that the orders in question did not impact the Appellant's case and provided guidance on potential future actions regarding possession of the hotel. The judgment extensively referenced legal precedents to explain the legal framework and processes involved in the case.

---

---

Issues:
1. Delay in preferring the appeal.
2. Impleadment application rejection by the Adjudicating Authority.
3. Challenge to the orders dated 4th February, 2019, and 18th March, 2019.
4. Interpretation of provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.
5. Maintainability of the appeal.

Analysis:

1. Delay in Preferring the Appeal:
The judgment begins by addressing the delay of 7 days in preferring the appeal, which was condoned after hearing the counsel for the Appellant and 'Bank of Baroda.' The delay issue was disposed of through this order.

2. Impleadment Application Rejection:
The Appellant claimed to have purchased 'Hotel Brys Fort, Jaisalmer' and sought to be impleaded before the Adjudicating Authority when a petition under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code was filed by 'Bank of Baroda.' The Adjudicating Authority rejected the Impleadment Application, which was challenged in this appeal along with the subsequent order admitting the application under Section 7.

3. Challenge to Orders:
The appeal challenged the orders dated 4th February, 2019, and 18th March, 2019. The Appellant contested the rejection of the Impleadment Application and the subsequent admission of the application under Section 7 by the Adjudicating Authority.

4. Interpretation of I&B Code Provisions:
The judgment extensively quoted the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in "Innoventive Industries Ltd. Vs. ICICI Bank and Ors." to explain the scheme of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. It highlighted the definitions of debt, default, financial creditor, operational creditor, and the process for triggering the corporate insolvency resolution process under Section 7.

5. Maintainability of the Appeal:
The Tribunal found that the order of admission dated 18th March, 2019 did not impact the Appellant's case. It clarified the steps the Appellant could take if the Interim Resolution Professional or Resolution Professional intended to take possession of the hotel. The judgment concluded that the appeal was not maintainable, with no infirmity found in the orders dated 4th February, 2019, and 18th March, 2019.

In summary, the judgment addressed the delay in appeal, rejection of the Impleadment Application, interpretation of I&B Code provisions, and the maintainability of the appeal. It provided detailed analysis and guidance on the legal processes involved, citing relevant legal precedents and outlining the steps for the parties involved to follow in the given situation.

---