Appeal challenging liquidation orders dismissed due to procedural non-compliance and unproven claims.

The Court dismissed the appeal challenging liquidation orders, finding no interference warranted. The Appellants' claims of fraud, ownership disputes, and collusion were unproven. They failed to adhere to IBC procedures for Resolution Applicant status, leading to dismissal of their appeal and upholding of the liquidation orders by the Adjudicating Authority, Kolkata Bench.

---

---

Issues involved:
1. Challenge to liquidation orders passed by the Adjudicating Authority.
2. Allegations of fraud in the insolvency proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
3. Dispute over the ownership of a property belonging to the Corporate Debtor.
4. Claim of collusion between the Financial Creditor and Directors of the Corporate Debtor.
5. Request to be considered as Resolution Applicants under the IBC.
6. Interpretation of provisions of the IBC regarding Resolution Applicants and Resolution Plans.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The Appellants challenged two orders passed by the Adjudicating Authority, Kolkata Bench, for liquidation. The Appellants filed applications for impleadment, consideration as Resolution Applicants, and alleged fraud in the insolvency proceedings under the IBC. The Adjudicating Authority proceeded with liquidation without deciding the applications, citing the end of the CIRP period and no receipt of a Resolution Plan.

2. The dispute centered around a property in Kolkata claimed by the Appellants, not being shareholders or directors of the Corporate Debtor. The Financial Creditor's application under Section 7 of the IBC led to the Adjudicating Authority's actions, with the Appellants resisting as they believed the property did not belong to the Corporate Debtor.

3. The Respondent argued that the property belonged to the Corporate Debtor, and the Appellants had no right to retain it. The Court referred to a Title Suit where the property was mentioned as belonging to the Corporate Debtor, leading to the dismissal of the Appellants' claim.

4. The Appellants alleged collusion between the Financial Creditor and the Corporate Debtor's Directors, citing shared personnel and claimed assets. The Respondent denied collusion, stating the shared personnel acted in a professional capacity.

5. The Appellants sought to be considered as Resolution Applicants, but the Court found their belated offer without following IBC procedures insufficient. The Court emphasized the importance of following the Resolution Plan submission process.

6. The Court dismissed the appeal, finding no reason to interfere with the liquidation orders. It held that the Appellants failed to prove their claims, including collusion and ownership disputes, and did not follow proper procedures to be considered as Resolution Applicants under the IBC. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the liquidation orders.

---