Tribunal excludes ASK Investment Managers from CoC, upholding impartiality in insolvency resolution process

The Tribunal determined that ASK Investment Managers Limited qualifies as a related party of the Corporate Debtor under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. Consequently, ASK Investment Managers Limited was deemed ineligible to be a member of the Committee of Creditors with voting rights to prevent conflicts of interest and uphold the impartiality of the insolvency resolution process. The Tribunal allowed the appeals, setting aside the order that previously included ASK Investment Managers Limited in the CoC, emphasizing the importance of excluding related parties from influencing decision-making in insolvency proceedings.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Applicant/Respondent No.1 (ASK Investment Managers Limited) is a related party in terms of Section 5(24)(h), 5(24)(m), and 5(24)(i) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
2. Whether the Applicant/Respondent No.1 can be made a member of the Committee of Creditors (CoC) with voting rights.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the Applicant/Respondent No.1 (ASK Investment Managers Limited) is a related party in terms of Section 5(24)(h), 5(24)(m), and 5(24)(i) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
The Tribunal examined whether ASK Investment Managers Limited (Respondent No.1) qualifies as a related party of the Corporate Debtor under the specified sections of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016. The Respondent held an 8% shareholding in the Corporate Debtor and funded Rs. 49.50 crores through debentures. The Appellant argued that the Respondent had significant control over the Corporate Debtor's management and policy-making, citing various clauses from the Subscription and Shareholders Agreement (SSHA) which granted the Respondent affirmative voting rights and the ability to nominate directors. The Tribunal noted that the Respondent had substantial influence over the Corporate Debtor's operations and decision-making processes, including the appointment of key personnel and participation in policy-making. It was determined that the Respondent's involvement and control met the criteria of a related party as defined in Section 5(24)(h), 5(24)(m), and 5(24)(i) of the IBC, 2016.

2. Whether the Applicant/Respondent No.1 can be made a member of the Committee of Creditors (CoC) with voting rights.
The Tribunal considered whether the Respondent, being a related party, could be included in the CoC with voting rights. The Adjudicating Authority had previously directed the Resolution Professional to include the Respondent in the CoC. However, the Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's ruling in Phoenix ARC Private Limited v Spade Financial Services Ltd, which emphasized that related parties of the Corporate Debtor should not be allowed to participate in the CoC to avoid conflicts of interest. The Tribunal also referred to the Insolvency Law Committee Report of 2020, which clarified that the exclusion of related parties from the CoC is to prevent them from influencing decision-making processes at the expense of other financial creditors. It was concluded that the Respondent, being a related party, should not be included in the CoC with voting rights, as this would undermine the objective of the IBC to have the CIRP driven by external creditors.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeals and set aside the impugned order. It held that ASK Investment Managers Limited is a related party to the Corporate Debtor and, therefore, cannot be made part of the CoC with voting rights. The Tribunal emphasized that the inclusion of related parties in the CoC would conflict with the provisions and objectives of the IBC.

---