Appellant Must Approach NCLAT for Factual Errors on Eligibility Under Section 29A of IBC, 2016

COSMIC CRF LIMITED Versus MYOTIC TRADING PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS.

1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

• Whether the resolution applicant is eligible under Section 29A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC, 2016).
• Whether the findings of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) regarding the ineligibility of the resolution applicant under Section 29A are perverse or contrary to the record.
• Whether factual errors alleged by the appellant in the NCLAT's findings can be reviewed or corrected by the Supreme Court or should be addressed by the NCLAT itself.
• The scope of the bar on review in the context of factual errors in appellate tribunal findings.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Eligibility of the Resolution Applicant under Section 29A of IBC, 2016

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 29A of the IBC, 2016, sets out disqualifications for persons to be eligible as resolution applicants. The provision aims to exclude persons who are connected with the corporate debtor in a manner that could compromise the insolvency resolution process.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The NCLAT examined multiple legal opinions and reports from various law firms and professionals including AHSK, PSA, and a Senior Advocate. The majority of these reports concluded the resolution applicant was ineligible under various clauses of Section 29A (specifically clauses (a), (c), (h), and (j)). The NCLAT noted that the resolution applicant was given opportunities to be heard and respond to the queries raised regarding eligibility.

Key Evidence and Findings: The NCLAT relied on detailed reports from AHSK and PSA, which found the resolution applicant ineligible. Despite a contrary opinion from a Senior Advocate on the final PSA report, the NCLAT gave greater weight to the detailed expert reports that consistently found ineligibility. The resolution applicant was also given a chance to respond, which did not satisfactorily address the issues raised.

Application of Law to Facts: The NCLAT applied the eligibility criteria under Section 29A to the facts presented in the reports and the resolution applicant's responses. It concluded that the resolution applicant did not meet the eligibility requirements and thus was disqualified from participating in the resolution process.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The NCLAT acknowledged the Senior Advocate's opinion that the resolution applicant was eligible but found it insufficient to overturn the consistent findings of ineligibility in the detailed expert reports. The Tribunal emphasized the comprehensive nature of the reports and the procedural fairness in allowing the resolution applicant to be heard.

Conclusions: The NCLAT's conclusion was that the resolution applicant was ineligible under Section 29A of the IBC, 2016.

Issue 2: Whether the NCLAT's Findings are Perverse or Contrary to the Record

Relevant Legal Framework: The standard for interference with findings of fact by an appellate court or the Supreme Court is limited to cases where findings are perverse, arbitrary, or unsupported by evidence.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Supreme Court noted that the NCLAT's findings were based on detailed reports and records on the issue of eligibility. The Court observed that the appellant's allegations of factual errors should be addressed before the NCLAT rather than by the Supreme Court at this stage.

Key Evidence and Findings: The Court reviewed the NCLAT's reliance on multiple expert reports and the procedural steps taken to allow the resolution applicant to respond. It found no indication that the NCLAT's conclusions were arbitrary or unsupported by the record.

Application of Law to Facts: The Supreme Court applied the principle that factual findings by the appellate tribunal are not to be disturbed lightly and that the appropriate forum for pointing out factual errors is the appellate tribunal itself.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The appellant argued that the NCLAT's findings were incorrect and contrary to the record. The respondents contended that the findings were well-founded and not perverse. The Supreme Court sided with the respondents, emphasizing the availability of remedies before the NCLAT for factual errors.

Conclusions: The Supreme Court held that the NCLAT's findings were not perverse or contrary to the record and should stand. The appellant was directed to approach the NCLAT for any factual corrections.

Issue 3: Scope of Review and Bar on Review in Context of Factual Errors

Relevant Legal Framework: The bar on review generally limits interference by higher courts in findings of fact unless there is a manifest error or perversity. The appellate tribunal has the jurisdiction to reconsider factual findings on appeal or review.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Supreme Court clarified that since the appellant's grievance relates to factual errors, the bar on review should not prevent the NCLAT from reconsidering the matter. The Court emphasized that the appropriate remedy for factual disputes is to seek redress before the appellate tribunal rather than the Supreme Court.

Key Evidence and Findings: The Court noted that the appellant had not exhausted the remedy of pointing out factual errors to the NCLAT, which could reconsider the issue in light of the appellant's submissions.

Application of Law to Facts: The Court applied the principle that appellate tribunals are the primary forums for re-examination of factual matters and that higher courts intervene only in exceptional circumstances.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: While the appellant sought direct intervention by the Supreme Court, the respondents argued that factual issues should be resolved by the NCLAT. The Court agreed with the respondents.

Conclusions: The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the NCLAT's findings on factual grounds and directed the appellant to raise such issues before the NCLAT.