Appeal Dismissed: MSME Status Dispute under IBC Section 29A

The appeal against the liquidation order and rejection of the resolution plan was dismissed by the tribunal. The appellant's claims of MSME status and eligibility were refuted due to Section 29A of the IBC, citing fraudulent transactions and failure to fulfill obligations. The tribunal highlighted the lack of CoC approval for the resolution plan within the specified timeframe, leading to the liquidation order. The tribunal also disregarded the appellant's MSME certificate obtained without consent and emphasized the pending application's significance. The appeal was disposed of without overturning the liquidation order, awaiting a formal decision on the pending application and dismissing allegations against the Resolution Professional.

---

---

Issues:
Appeal against liquidation order, rejection of resolution plan, applicability of Section 29A of IBC, allegations against ex-promoter, MSME status, pending application under Sections 43, 66, and 65 of IBC.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against the order directing liquidation of the Corporate Debtor and rejecting the appellant's resolution plan, claiming the Corporate Debtor's MSME status and the appellant's eligibility to file a resolution plan.
2. The appellant detailed the initiation of CIRP, efforts to settle under Section 12(A) of IBC, and submission of a resolution plan, which was ultimately objected to by the Resolution Professional.
3. The Adjudicating Authority observed that the appellant was hit by Section 29A of IBC due to fraudulent transactions and failure to pay amounts promised earlier, leading to liquidation proceedings.
4. The appellant contended that the liquidation order was premature, as an application under Sections 43, 66, and 65 of IBC was pending, challenging the observations made under Section 29A.
5. The tribunal acknowledged the appellant's settlement efforts but noted the lack of CoC approval for the resolution plan within the prescribed time, leading to the liquidation order.
6. The tribunal addressed the appellant's MSME certificate obtained during CIRP without IRP/RP consent, citing the need to prevent backdoor entries post-CIRP initiation.
7. The tribunal disregarded the observations under Section 29A, emphasizing the pending application's formal decision and rejected the claim of MSME status, declining to direct the Liquidator based on the appellant's assertions.
8. The appeal was disposed of without setting aside the impugned order, emphasizing the need for a formal decision on the pending application and ignoring baseless allegations against the Resolution Professional.

---