MSME status and EOI compliance under the IBC remain document-driven, while section 10 timing depended on pre-amendment filing.

MSME status under the IBC requires supporting material or registration details, and a Resolution Professional is not expected to conduct detailed investigations within the summary resolution process; on the facts noted, the claim was not substantiated. An EOI must comply with the invitation and Regulation 36-A requirements, including prescribed documents and undertakings, and a late or incomplete submission is liable to rejection. A section 10 insolvency application filed before the 6 June 2018 amendment requiring a special resolution was treated as valid, because the amendment had not yet taken effect.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellant could claim the benefit of section 240A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 on the footing that the corporate debtor was a micro, small or medium enterprise. (ii) Whether the Resolution Professional was justified in rejecting the appellant's expression of interest for non-compliance and late submission. (iii) Whether the insolvency application under section 10 was invalid for want of shareholders' approval.

Issue (i): Whether the appellant could claim the benefit of section 240A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 on the footing that the corporate debtor was a micro, small or medium enterprise.

Analysis: Section 240A exempts micro, small and medium enterprises from the rigour of clauses (c) and (h) of section 29A, but the entitlement depends on the corporate debtor first being shown to fall within the statutory classification under section 7 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006. The materials placed before the Tribunal did not establish such classification with certainty. The Tribunal held that in a time-bound CIRP, neither the Resolution Professional nor the Adjudicating Authority is expected to conduct a detailed investigation into accounts, notifications and factual classification issues to determine MSME status.

Conclusion: The appellant failed to establish that the corporate debtor was an MSME, and the claim to the benefit of section 240A was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the Resolution Professional was justified in rejecting the appellant's expression of interest for non-compliance and late submission.

Analysis: The invitation for expression of interest fixed a deadline, and Regulation 36-A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 requires rejection of an expression of interest received after the specified time. The appellant's email was not shown to satisfy the prescribed requirements for a prospective resolution applicant, including the requisite undertakings and supporting documents. Even on the appellant's own case, the communication did not comply with the stated criteria.

Conclusion: The rejection of the appellant's expression of interest was upheld as justified.

Issue (iii): Whether the insolvency application under section 10 was invalid for want of shareholders' approval.

Analysis: The amendment introducing the requirement of a special resolution for an under section 10 came into force after the application had already been admitted. The Tribunal also noted the appellant's dominant shareholding and found no basis to invalidate the earlier admission order on this ground.

Conclusion: The challenge to the maintainability of the section 10 application failed.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was found to be devoid of merit, and the Tribunal left the impugned order undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: In a time-bound CIRP, MSME status must be shown by reliable material before the benefit of section 240A can be invoked, and the Resolution Professional is not required to undertake a detailed factual investigation into MSME classification; a non-compliant or belated expression of interest may be rejected under the governing regulations.

---