Unsuccessful resolution applicant lacks standing to challenge approved plan after rejection under Section 30

NCLAT Chennai dismissed appeals by unsuccessful resolution applicant challenging rejection of intervention application and resolution plan approval under Section 30 of IB Code. Tribunal held appellant lacked locus standi to intervene or challenge approved resolution plan after their own plan was rejected. Court ruled unsuccessful bidders have no right to be heard during resolution plan approval stage. Impleadment application by successful resolution applicant was allowed to protect their interests in approved plan.

---

---

Issues:
1. Rejection of Intervention Application in Company Appeal (AT)(CH)(Ins) No. 342/2024
2. Challenge to the approval process of the Resolution Plan by the Appellant
3. Impleadment of M/s Lulu International Shopping Malls Private Limited in Company Appeal (AT)(CH)(Ins) No. 343/2023

Analysis:

1. In Company Appeal (AT)(CH)(Ins) No. 342/2024, the Appellant's Intervention Application was rejected as they were deemed an unsuccessful Resolution Applicant. The Appellant had participated in the Resolution Process but was determined to have no locus standi to become a party for the Resolution Plan approval under Section 30 of I & B Code. Despite submitting a Revised Resolution Plan, it was rejected by the Committee of Creditors, and the Resolution Plan of M/s Lulu International Shopping Malls Private Limited was approved. The Tribunal held that since the rejection of the Intervention Application was final and unchallenged, the Appellant had no legally enforceable right to challenge the approval process or seek impleadment.

2. The Appellant in Company Appeal (AT)(CH)(Ins) No. 342/2024 sought to challenge the approval process of the Resolution Plan by filing an appeal. However, since their Revised Resolution Plan was rejected, and they were not considered a successful Resolution Applicant, the Tribunal ruled that the Appellant lacked the necessary standing to intervene or challenge the Resolution Plan approval process. The Tribunal emphasized that the Appellant's rights were not affected at the stage of Resolution Plan approval, as their plan had already been rejected.

3. In Company Appeal (AT)(CH)(Ins) No. 343/2023, M/s Lulu International Shopping Malls Private Limited sought impleadment as a successful Resolution Applicant. The Tribunal allowed their intervention as their Resolution Plan had been approved. The Appellant in this appeal had also been deemed an unsuccessful Resolution Applicant, and their Intervention Application had been rejected. The Tribunal concluded that since the Appellant had no standing or locus to challenge the Resolution Plan approval process, their appeal against the approval of M/s Lulu International Shopping Malls Private Limited's plan was not tenable and was dismissed.

In summary, the Appeals lacked merit as the Appellants had no standing to challenge the Resolution Plan approval process due to the rejection of their Revised Resolution Plans and Intervention Applications. The Tribunal affirmed that the rejection of the Intervention Applications had finality, and the Appellants were not considered aggrieved parties with the right to challenge the Resolution Plan approval. Therefore, the Appeals were dismissed based on the lack of standing and merit.

---