Succession proof not needed for Resolution Plan approval; Appeal allowed, another rejected

The appeal in Appeal No. 1275 of 2019 was allowed, directing the Resolution Professional to comply with the approved Resolution Plan without requiring further proof of succession from the legal heirs of Late Mukanchand Bothra. The Adjudicating Authority's order was modified accordingly. On the other hand, Appeal No. 844 of 2019 was rejected as the approved Resolution Plan was not under challenge, and the Resolution Professional was not considered an aggrieved party.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Adjudicating Authority has reviewed or recalled or modified its earlier Order without any authorityRs.
2. Whether the Adjudicating Authority was correct in directing the appellants to cause individual newspaper publications to receive the claim amount when the appellants were already impleaded in the case as legal heirs of Late Mukunchand BothraRs.

Issue 1: Authority to Review, Recall, or Modify Earlier Order
The appeal was filed mainly on the ground that the Adjudicating Authority has no power to review its Order. The Appellant contends that the Adjudicating Authority cannot review the earlier Order or reopen the case unless it appears that there is an arithmetical error apparent in the previous Order. The Adjudicating Authority had issued directions for paper publications in the newspaper, which was challenged by the Appellant. The Tribunal clarified that the Order passed by the Adjudicating Authority on 11th September 2019 cannot be treated as a modification, review, or recall of the earlier Order. The Tribunal noted that the Order for publication of notice in the newspaper was without any justification because the legal heirs of Late Sri Mukanchand Bothra were already on record. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the Adjudicating Authority did not modify or review its earlier Order.

Issue 2: Direction for Newspaper Publications
The Adjudicating Authority directed the appellants to cause individual newspaper publications to receive the claim amount. The Appellants argued that they were already impleaded in the case as legal heirs of Late Mukunchand Bothra and thus, such a direction was unnecessary. The Tribunal found that the Resolution Plan was approved by the Adjudicating Authority, and the names of legal heirs of late Mukanchand Bothra were already substituted by Order of the Adjudicating Authority with the consent of the Resolution Professional. Therefore, there was no occasion to demand a succession certificate, Probate Order from the Appellants at the time of distribution of money as per the approved Resolution Plan. The Tribunal held that the appellants are entitled to the share allotted to Late Mukanchand Bothra, and no further proof of succession is needed by the Resolution Professional from the legal heirs whose names had been substituted in place of Mukanchand Bothra. Thus, the Appeal was allowed, and the Resolution Professional was directed to comply with the conditions of the approved Resolution Plan without asking for any proof of succession from the legal heirs of Late Mukanchand Bothra.

Separate Judgment: Appeal No. 844 of 2019
This Appeal emanates from the Order dated 02nd July 2019, whereby the Adjudicating Authority directed the applicants to treat them at par with other unsecured financial creditors and make appropriate provisions for payment. The Resolution Professional filed an Appeal against this Order on 13th August 2019. However, the Tribunal noted that the approved Resolution Plan dated 27th August 2019 was not under challenge, and the Appeal had become infructuous. The Tribunal also noted that the Resolution Professional cannot be termed as an aggrieved person and dismissed the Appeal as not maintainable. Therefore, the Appeal No 844 of 2019 was rejected.

Order:
Appeal No. 1275 of 2019 is allowed. Resolution Professional is directed to comply with the conditions of the approved Resolution Plan without asking for any proof of succession from the legal heirs of Late Mukanchand Bothra. The Order of the Adjudicating Authority is modified to this extent.

Appeal No 844 of 2019 is rejected. No order as to costs.

---