Appeal Dismissed: Lack of Locus Standi, Time-Bound Resolution Process

The Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal, ruling that the Appellant lacked locus standi and the appeal was not maintainable. Emphasizing the importance of adhering to the time-bound resolution process, the Tribunal highlighted the limited jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Authority in approving or rejecting Resolution Plans. Pending applications were disposed of, and no order as to costs was issued.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Non-consideration of Appellant's Expression of Interest (EOI) by the Resolution Professional.
2. Alleged non-compliance of the Successful Resolution Plan with Section 30(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
3. Appellant's locus standi and maintainability of the appeal.
4. Implementation and finality of the approved Resolution Plan by the Successful Resolution Applicant.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Non-consideration of Appellant's Expression of Interest (EOI) by the Resolution Professional:
The Appellant submitted its EOI on 12.06.2020, offering Rs. 2000 Crore for the full and final settlement of the Corporate Debtor's outstanding debt and readiness to deposit Rs. 1000 Crore in an Escrow account. However, the Resolution Professional did not place this proposal before the Committee of Creditors (CoC) for consideration. The invitation for EOI was initially issued on 01.10.2018, and the last date for receipt of the Resolution Plan was 08.03.2019. The Appellant's EOI was submitted almost a year after the CoC's approval of the Resolution Plan, which was filed by the Resolution Professional under Section 31 of the Code on 10.07.2019.

2. Alleged non-compliance of the Successful Resolution Plan with Section 30(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016:
The Appellant contended that the Successful Resolution Plan did not comply with Section 30(2) of the Code. The Appellant cited the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Limited Vs. Satish Kumar Gupta & Ors., asserting that the Adjudicating Authority should either reject the Resolution Plan or send it back to the CoC for reconsideration if it is non-compliant. The Appellant argued that the Adjudicating Authority's modification of the Resolution Plan exceeded its jurisdiction and that the Resolution Professional failed to place the Appellant's request before the CoC, contravening the Supreme Court's judgment.

3. Appellant's locus standi and maintainability of the appeal:
The Appellant claimed that any person could prefer an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal under Section 61(3) of the Code. However, the Respondents argued that the Appellant, not being a stakeholder or a prospective Resolution Applicant, lacked the locus standi to challenge the Resolution Plan. The Respondent No.1 (Erstwhile Resolution Professional) informed that the Resolution Plan had been successfully implemented, and the Successful Resolution Applicant was now in control of the Corporate Debtor. The Respondents emphasized that the Appellant's appeal was frivolous and aimed at derailing the concluded Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). The Appellate Tribunal agreed, noting that the Appellant was a "rank outsider" who sought to intervene at a belated stage, and thus, the appeal was not maintainable.

4. Implementation and finality of the approved Resolution Plan by the Successful Resolution Applicant:
The Respondent No.3 (Successful Resolution Applicant) submitted that the Resolution Plan had already been implemented, with Rs. 1,550 Crore paid, existing shares of the Corporate Debtor canceled, new shares issued to the Successful Resolution Applicant, and a new board of directors appointed. The Respondents argued that entertaining the Appellant's EOI at this stage would undermine the statutory procedure and the time-bound resolution process enshrined in the Code. The Appellate Tribunal concurred, stating that the Appellant's intervention could jeopardize the entire CIRP and that the commercial wisdom of the CoC was non-justiciable.

Conclusion:
The Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal, holding that the Appellant lacked locus standi and the appeal was not maintainable. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of adhering to the time-bound resolution process and the limited jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Authority in approving or rejecting Resolution Plans. Pending applications were disposed of, and no order as to costs was made.

---