Appeal dismissed due to delay and lack of standing, Impugned Order upheld, affecting enforcement of security interest.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Petitioner/Appellant, ruling it as not maintainable due to delay and lack of standing to challenge the Resolution Plan and CIRP proceedings. The Impugned Order was upheld, affecting the Petitioner/Appellant's rights to enforce security interest. The Tribunal also rejected related interlocutory applications and dismissed a request for impleadment by another party.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Recognition of the Petitioner/Appellant as a "Secured Creditor" and its rights under the SARFAESI Act, 2002.
2. Validity of the "Impugned Order" by the Adjudicating Authority.
3. Petitioner's locus standi to challenge the Resolution Plan and Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP).
4. The maintainability of the appeal and related interlocutory applications.

Summary of Judgment:

Issue 1: Recognition as a "Secured Creditor"
The Petitioner/Appellant argued that it is a recognized Financial Institution under the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, and a "Secured Creditor" under the SARFAESI Act, 2002. The Original Lender had provided financial assistance to the 4th Respondent by subscribing to Optionally Convertible Debentures (OCDs), which were secured by mortgage over the 4th Respondent's leasehold rights and other assets. This debt and security were assigned to the Petitioner/Appellant through a Registered Deed of Assignment.

Issue 2: Validity of the "Impugned Order"
The Petitioner/Appellant contended that the Adjudicating Authority did not consider the "Concept of Relief Period" under Section 46 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and allowed the IA/400(CHE)/2021 in IBA/1099/2019 without properly evaluating the authenticity of the transactions. The Petitioner/Appellant argued that the Impugned Order adversely affected its rights to enforce the security interest for recovery of outstanding dues.

Issue 3: Locus Standi to Challenge the Resolution Plan
The 1st Respondent countered that the Petitioner/Appellant was not a party to the original petition and thus had no locus standi to challenge the Resolution Plan approved by the Adjudicating Authority. The Tribunal agreed, stating that the Resolution Applicant had taken over the Corporate Debtor with a clean slate, and the Petitioner/Appellant had no rights to challenge the plan or the CIRP proceedings.

Issue 4: Maintainability of the Appeal
The Tribunal concluded that the appeal filed by the Petitioner/Appellant was not maintainable due to inordinate and inexplicable delay. The Tribunal also noted that the Petitioner/Appellant, as a controlling stakeholder, could not present a case different from that of the 4th Respondent, which had already filed an appeal.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed IA No. 696 of 2022, seeking leave to prefer the appeal, as ex facie not maintainable. Consequently, the main appeal, Comp. App (AT) (CH) (Ins.) No. 325 of 2022, was also rejected. The related interlocutory applications were closed. The Tribunal also dismissed IA No. 1107/2022, filed by L & T Infra Investments Partner, seeking to be impleaded as a respondent, as not maintainable.

---