Section 65 application cannot be rejected without merit consideration despite ongoing Section 7 proceedings

NCLAT held that the Adjudicating Authority erred in rejecting a Section 65 application without considering its merits. The court ruled that admission of Section 7 proceedings does not preclude examination of allegations under Section 65 regarding fraudulent or malicious initiation of insolvency proceedings. The appellant, being a home-buyer in related proceedings, had sufficient locus standi to file the application. The timing of filing during resolution plan consideration does not eliminate the court's jurisdiction to investigate fraud allegations. The Adjudicating Authority retains power to impose penalties and close CIRP if fraudulent initiation is established. Appeal was disposed of, directing merit-based consideration of the Section 65 application.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Rejection of intervention application by the Adjudicating Authority.
2. Allegations of fraudulent and malicious initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP).
3. Appellant's locus standi to file the application.
4. Jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Authority under Section 65 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC).
5. Timing and impact of the application on the resolution plan process.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Rejection of Intervention Application:

The primary issue was the rejection of the intervention application filed by the Appellant, a home-buyer in a group housing project of Granite Gate Properties Private Limited (GGPPL), by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). The Appellant sought to intervene in the CIRP proceedings against a group company, Vistar Construction Private Limited, alleging fraudulent initiation of the process. The Adjudicating Authority dismissed the application, stating that the Appellant had no direct transaction with the Corporate Debtor and thus lacked the locus to oppose the order admitting the CIRP.

2. Allegations of Fraudulent and Malicious Initiation of CIRP:

The Appellant alleged that the initiation of CIRP by the Financial Creditor was fraudulent and malicious, claiming that the debt was non-existent and merely a result of round-tripping of funds. The Appellant argued that the financial transaction was a paper transaction, with the alleged debt amount being transferred back to a related company of the Financial Creditor on the same day, indicating no genuine financial debt. The Appellant sought dismissal of the company petition and imposition of penalties under Section 65 of the IBC, which addresses fraudulent or malicious initiation of proceedings.

3. Appellant's Locus Standi to File the Application:

The Adjudicating Authority initially rejected the application on the grounds that the Appellant had no locus standi, as they were not directly involved with the Corporate Debtor. However, the Appellant argued that as a home-buyer in a related company, GGPPL, which was also in CIRP, they had a vested interest in the proceedings. The Appellant claimed that the outcome of the CIRP against the Corporate Debtor would adversely affect their interests, as GGPPL was owed money by the Corporate Debtor. The Tribunal later acknowledged that the Appellant had sufficient interest to file the application, given the potential impact on their rights.

4. Jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Authority under Section 65 of the IBC:

The Tribunal clarified that the Adjudicating Authority retains jurisdiction under Section 65 of the IBC to examine allegations of fraudulent initiation of CIRP, even after the admission of a Section 7 application. The Tribunal noted that the mere admission of the CIRP does not preclude the Authority from investigating claims of fraud or malicious intent. The Tribunal emphasized the need for a deeper examination of the allegations made by the Appellant, given the serious nature of the claims.

5. Timing and Impact of the Application on the Resolution Plan Process:

The Respondents contended that the Appellant's application was filed belatedly, at a stage when the resolution plan was under consideration. However, the Tribunal held that the timing of the application does not negate the Authority's duty to investigate potential fraud. The Tribunal instructed the Adjudicating Authority to consider the application on its merits before proceeding with the approval of the resolution plan, ensuring that any fraudulent activities are addressed appropriately.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal set aside the order of the Adjudicating Authority, reviving the Appellant's application for reconsideration. It directed the Adjudicating Authority to examine the allegations of fraud and decide the application in accordance with the law, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. The appeal was disposed of, with instructions to address the application before considering the resolution plan.

---