Tribunal Upholds Resolution Plan Approval, Rejects Post-Approval Intervention

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal by 'M/s Prashant Properties Pvt. Ltd.,' holding that the Adjudicating Authority lacked jurisdiction to review its decision after approving the Resolution Plan. The Appellant's claims regarding brand usage and intervention were rejected, emphasizing that the approved Plan was binding on all stakeholders, including creditors. As an Operational Creditor, the Appellant could not seek intervention post-approval, and the Tribunal found no grounds to challenge the finality of the approved Plan. The appeal was dismissed without costs.

---

---

Issues:
- Rejection of claims by the Appellant by the Adjudicating Authority
- Appellant's entitlement to use the brand 'Elegant' and 'Family of Marks'
- Jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Authority after approval of the Resolution Plan
- Intervention sought by the Appellant as an Operational Creditor

Analysis:
1. The Adjudicating Authority rejected the claims made by the Appellant, 'M/s Prashant Properties Pvt. Ltd.,' on the basis that the Resolution Plan had already been approved and the Authority had no power to review its decision. The rejection order was part of a composite order passed on 26-2-2020 in CP(IB)No. 595/KB/2017. The Appellant challenged this decision through the instant appeal.

2. The Appellant claimed entitlement to use the brand 'Elegant' and 'Family of Marks' and sought intervention in a pending case. The Adjudicating Authority declined to draw adverse conclusions based on reports against the management of the Corporate Debtor. The Authority held that the application by the Appellant was not maintainable post the approval of the Resolution Plan, stating it lacked jurisdiction to determine any issues related to the Plan after approval.

3. The Appellant argued that the public notice issued by the Resolution Professional before a specific decision was without jurisdiction, and the right to use the trademark 'Elegant' had not passed to the Successful Resolution Applicant. The Respondent contended that the Adjudicating Authority had become functus officio post approval of the Resolution Plan and could not review its decision.

4. After considering arguments from both parties, the Tribunal held that the Appellant, as an Operational Creditor, could not seek intervention post the approval of the Resolution Plan. The approved Plan was binding on all stakeholders, including creditors, as per Section 31(1) of the I&B Code. The Tribunal noted that the Appellant had ample opportunity to participate in the proceedings and that the approved Plan had attained finality, beyond challenge by the Appellant.

5. Consequently, the Tribunal found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it without costs.

---