Pre-admission intervention in Section 9 insolvency proceedings is not an ordinary right, but exceptional facts may justify it.

A financial creditor does not ordinarily have a pre-admission right to intervene in a Section 9 insolvency proceeding, because participation usually arises after admission of the application. On the exceptional facts recorded, however, intervention was permitted where the appellant was the largest financial creditor and produced material suggesting insurance settlement, discharge, and subrogation documents that could affect the operational creditor's maintainability. The intervention was therefore confined to those peculiar facts and was not treated as a general rule.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a financial creditor has a right to intervene in proceedings under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 before admission of the application. (ii) Whether the exceptional facts, including the claim discharge and subrogation material, justified permitting intervention in the present case.

Issue (i): Whether a financial creditor has a right to intervene in proceedings under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 before admission of the application.

Analysis: The governing scheme of insolvency proceedings does not contemplate intervention by a financial creditor at the pre-admission stage of a Section 9 application as a matter of ordinary right. A financial creditor ordinarily acquires the right to lodge its claim and participate in the process after admission of the insolvency application. Intervention before admission is therefore not the normal rule and can only be examined if special circumstances are shown.

Conclusion: The financial creditor had no general right to intervene before admission of the Section 9 application.

Issue (ii): Whether the exceptional facts, including the claim discharge and subrogation material, justified permitting intervention in the present case.

Analysis: The record disclosed exceptional circumstances. The appellant was the largest financial creditor, had initiated SARFAESI action, and produced material indicating that the operational creditor had received insurance settlement and executed discharge and subrogation documents. Those facts were relevant to whether the operational creditor could still pursue the insolvency claim and warranted examination by the adjudicating authority before further steps were taken. The allowance of intervention was, however, confined to the peculiar facts and was not treated as a general rule.

Conclusion: Intervention was justified on the exceptional facts of the case.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded and the rejection orders were set aside, with permission granted to the appellant to intervene in the concerned insolvency proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: A financial creditor does not ordinarily have a pre-admission right to intervene in a Section 9 insolvency proceeding, but intervention may be permitted where exceptional facts make the issue of maintainability or continuation of the claim relevant for adjudication.

---