Tribunal dismisses challenge on creditor status & RP decision, citing prior ruling.

The Tribunal dismissed the application challenging the decision of the Resolution Professional, declaring the applicant as an Operational Creditor instead of a Financial Creditor. The applicant's request for directions, replacement of the Resolution Professional, and action against him were rejected. The Tribunal referred to a previous case involving the same parties and subject matter, where the applicant's status as an Operational Creditor was confirmed. Consequently, the current application was deemed not maintainable and dismissed.

---

---

Issues:
1. Application under section 60(5) of the IBC, 2016 against the decision of the Resolution Professional.
2. Declaration of applicant as Operational Creditor instead of Financial Creditor.
3. Request for necessary directions and quashing of decisions taken in CoC meetings.
4. Replacement of the Resolution Professional and initiation of action against him.

Analysis:
1. The applicant, a statutory Authority, filed an application under section 60(5) of the IBC, 2016 challenging the decision of the Resolution Professional declaring them as an Operational Creditor in the 6th CoC meeting. The applicant sought to uphold their status as a Financial Creditor based on a previous decision in the 4th CoC meeting. They also requested the replacement of the current Resolution Professional and action against him for the alleged financial loss incurred due to the change in status.

2. The applicant, GNIDA, claimed to be the owner of the land and entered into agreements with a Consortium for development purposes. They argued that the transactions with the Corporate Debtor were financial in nature due to payments for land premium and lease rent, constituting a financial debt. The applicant contended that they were a Secured Creditor based on the lease agreement terms and the nature of the dues owed by the Corporate Debtor.

3. The applicant highlighted their submission of claims as a Financial Creditor in the 4th CoC meeting, where they were undisputedly accepted as such. They objected to being declared an Operational Creditor in the subsequent 6th CoC meeting, emphasizing that the change in status was unwarranted and should not have been reviewed or reversed.

4. The Tribunal noted that similar issues had been raised and decided in a previous case (CA/1511/2019) involving the same parties and subject matter. The Tribunal referred to an order dated 28.02.2020, where the decision to treat the applicant as an Operational Creditor was confirmed. As a result, the Tribunal found the present application to be not maintainable and dismissed it accordingly.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the application as the issues raised had already been addressed and decided in a previous order, rendering the current application not maintainable. The applicant's arguments regarding their status as a Financial Creditor and the actions of the Resolution Professional were considered in light of previous decisions, leading to the dismissal of the present application.

---