Tribunal Upholds Rejection of Ex-Director's Application for Clarification on Shareholding

The Tribunal upheld the Adjudicating Authority's rejection of the ex-director and shareholder's application seeking clarification on shareholding consideration and access to the Resolution Plan. The Tribunal found that the ex-director lacked standing as they were not part of the Suspended Board of Directors during the CIRP process and had resigned earlier. The Tribunal clarified that the previous judgment cited by the ex-director was not applicable to their situation. As the CIRP process was completed and the Resolution Plan approved without appeal within the limitation period, the Tribunal dismissed the Appeal.

---

---

Issues involved:
The judgment concerns the rejection of an application by the Adjudicating Authority, the involvement of an ex-director and shareholder of a Corporate Debtor in the CIRP process, and the request for clarification and access to the Resolution Plan.

Ex-Director's Application:
The Appellant, an ex-director and shareholder of the Corporate Debtor, filed an application (I.A. No. 2116 of 2023) seeking clarification on the consideration of the Corporate Debtor's shareholding in two companies during the assessment of assets and liabilities. The Adjudicating Authority rejected the application, stating that the Appellant was not part of the Suspended Board of Directors and referencing a judgment that did not support the Appellant's case. The Resolution Professional argued that the Resolution Plan had been approved in 2022 without any appeal filed within the limitation period. The Appellant indirectly aimed to challenge the CIRP process and requested a copy of the Resolution Plan post-approval.

Prayers in the Application:
The Appellant's application included two prayers: one for clarification on the consideration of shareholding in the assessment of assets and liabilities, and the other for a copy of the approved Resolution Plan. The Tribunal found that the first prayer could not be granted at that stage, as the Information Memorandum prepared during the CIRP process already included asset details. Regarding the second prayer, the Appellant, having resigned in 2014 and not being part of the CIRP process, was not entitled to the Resolution Plan, which determines the rights of different stakeholders.

Legal Reference and Decision:
The Appellant relied on a previous judgment regarding access to the Resolution Plan post-approval. However, the Tribunal clarified that the referenced judgment was specific to workmen's claims and did not apply to the Appellant, who was not involved in the CIRP process. With the CIRP process completed and the Resolution Plan approved in 2022, the Tribunal deemed any direction on the prayers unnecessary. Consequently, the Adjudicating Authority's rejection of the application was upheld, and the Appeal was dismissed.

---