Appeal Dismissed for Lack of Locus; Section 29A IBC Eligibility Deferred to Adjudicating Authority, Heavy Costs Imposed

NCLAT dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant had no locus standi to object to the CoC-approved resolution plan or to file the appeal, as it failed to submit a resolution plan within the stipulated time and thus became procedurally irrelevant in the CIRP. The tribunal clarified that CIRP, though a proceeding in rem, does not permit participation by parties lacking a relevant jural or procedural relationship, and cannot be treated as public interest litigation. NCLAT declined to rule on the successful resolution applicant's alleged ineligibility under Sec.29A IBC, leaving that issue to the Adjudicating Authority under Sec.31. Costs of Rs.15 lakhs were imposed on the appellant.

---

---

ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1. Whether a Prospective Resolution Applicant (PRA) or an unsuccessful Resolution Applicant (RA) has locus standi to challenge the approval of a resolution plan by the Committee of Creditors (CoC) or to file an independent application before the Adjudicating Authority after having failed to submit a resolution plan within the prescribed time.

2. Whether procedural irregularities alleged in the conduct of the resolution process - specifically (a) convening of CoC meetings with less than 24 hours' notice and (b) inadequacy of minutes reflecting CoC deliberations - constitute material irregularity sufficient to vitiate approval of a resolution plan.

3. Whether the shortlisted Resolution Applicant is disqualified under Section 29A (including clauses concerning related parties and wilful defaulters) where directors resigned shortly before plan submission and where a director's relative's business debt has been declared NPA; and whether MSME status affects the applicability of Section 29A.

4. Whether the Resolution Professional's (RP) alleged failure to conduct statutorily required due diligence (including as to net-worth/effective net-worth criteria and Section 29A eligibility) vitiates the shortlisting/approval of a resolution plan.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1 - Locus Standi of PRA / Unsuccessful RA to challenge approval of resolution plan

Legal framework: Participation as a PRA is a procedural relationship created by the insolvency resolution process; Section 31 empowers the Adjudicating Authority to approve or reject plans; Section 61 provides locus for appeals; CIRP is characterized as a proceeding in rem affecting rights in the corporate debtor's assets.

Precedent treatment: The Tribunal examined divergent previous tribunal decisions - some denying locus to an unsuccessful RA while others permitted challenges where the PRA had actively participated and submitted plans. The Court also relied on higher-court pronouncements describing CIRP as an in rem proceeding.

Interpretation and reasoning: A PRA or unsuccessful RA does not acquire a substantive vested right to have its plan approved. Its procedural interest may entitle it to point out material irregularities, but only so long as its procedural relevance persists (i.e., it participated in the particular stage where the alleged irregularity occurred). Allowing every disappointed or non-serious PRA to file parallel challenges would undermine the statutory time-bound object of CIRP and risk duplication of effort. The Court emphasized conduct: repeated failure to submit plans despite repeated shortlisting and requests for extensions reduces procedural relevance and attenuates locus.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - A PRA/unuccessful RA who has become procedurally irrelevant by failing to submit a plan within prescribed timelines lacks locus to independently challenge CoC approval; however, a PRA/unuccessful RA may, while still procedurally relevant, raise material irregularities before the Adjudicating Authority when the plan is considered under Section 31. Obiter - observations on possible regulatory measures (blacklisting) and practical recommendations for handling objections.

Conclusions: The appellant - having repeatedly failed to submit a plan and having become procedurally irrelevant - lacked locus to impugn CoC approval. Objections by PRAs should normally be considered by the Adjudicating Authority when it entertains the Section 31 application, rather than through separate interlocutory proceedings that impede the CIRP timeline.

Issue 2 - Alleged procedural irregularities in convening CoC meetings and adequacy of minutes

Legal framework: CIRP Regulations prescribe procedural requirements for CoC meetings (including notice periods and maintenance of minutes), and the Adjudicating Authority tests legality and material irregularities under Section 31.

Precedent treatment: The Court reviewed prior decisions addressing material irregularity and the extent to which procedural lapses vitiate CoC decisions; it applied those principles to the facts.

Interpretation and reasoning: Where there was only one resolution plan before the CoC, the convening of meetings with less than 24 hours' notice and brevity of minutes were not shown to be material infractions that affected the integrity of the resolution process. Given the appellant's procedural irrelevance, these procedural concerns did not amount to material irregularity warranting interference with CoC approval; the alleged deficiencies did not demonstrate lack of commercial application of mind by the CoC or prejudice to stakeholders.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Minor or non-prejudicial departures from procedural requirements (short notice; succinct minutes) do not automatically amount to material irregularity sufficient to vitiate the CoC's approval absent demonstrable prejudice or lack of commercial consideration. Obiter - guidance that Adjudicating Authority should examine objections as part of Section 31 proceedings.

Conclusions: The alleged meeting-notice and minutes deficiencies did not constitute material irregularity affecting legality of the approval on the facts before the Court.

Issue 3 - Applicability of Section 29A (related-party/wilful defaulter disqualification) and effect of resignations and MSME status

Legal framework: Section 29A sets out persons ineligible to submit resolution plans (including certain related parties and those connected with wilful defaulters); the test for relatedness is primarily commercial/relational rather than purely personal. MSME provisions do not immunise a party from Section 29A unless expressly provided.

Precedent treatment: The Court refrained from finally deciding Section 29A disqualification issues on appeal, noting that such issues fall within the remit of the Adjudicating Authority when it adjudicates under Section 31 and in light of higher-court guidance that relationship must be one of business/commercial involvement.

Interpretation and reasoning: Resignations shortly before plan submission may be a device but require factual adjudication; mere familial relationship or notification of NPA in a relative's account does not ipso facto disqualify a PRA unless there is showing of commercial nexus or shared business interest. Given the appellant's lack of locus, the Court declined to decide the Section 29A question and directed the Adjudicating Authority to address it during Section 31 scrutiny, applying the commercial-relationship test.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Determination of Section 29A disqualification is within the Adjudicating Authority's competence during Section 31 consideration; familial relationships or resignations require factual and commercial nexus analysis before disqualification is found. Obiter - remarks on MSME exemption not operating to negate Section 29A unless statutory text so provides.

Conclusions: The Tribunal refrained from adjudicating the Section 29A objections on appeal and remitted the issue to the Adjudicating Authority for determination when considering plan approval under Section 31.

Issue 4 - RP's duty to conduct due diligence and net-worth/effective net-worth eligibility

Legal framework: CIRP Regulations require RP to ascertain eligibility criteria (including net-worth/effective net-worth) and compliance with Section 29A; Form G and regulatory provisions govern shortlisting criteria.

Precedent treatment: The Court considered submissions on effective net-worth versus net-worth and examined the documents produced by the Resolution Applicant in relation to Form G's stated criterion.

Interpretation and reasoning: Form G specified effective net worth; the Resolution Applicant supplied evidence to meet effective net-worth criteria. No material was produced to show the RP's due diligence was so deficient as to vitiate the shortlisting or approval on the record before the Tribunal. Allegations of inadequate RP diligence that relate to eligibility are capable of being examined by the Adjudicating Authority at Section 31 stage, particularly where locus of objector is limited.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Compliance with eligibility criteria is a factual and documentary inquiry to be addressed by the Adjudicating Authority during Section 31; mere allegations of inadequate due diligence by the RP without demonstrable prejudice are insufficient to set aside CoC approval on appeal by a procedurally irrelevant PRA. Obiter - suggestion that objections to eligibility can be raised by PRA via memo to avoid proliferating formal applications.

Conclusions: On the facts, effective net-worth criteria were satisfied as per Form G and available material; no appellate interference was warranted on grounds of RP's alleged failure of due diligence.

Relief, Costs and Procedural Recommendations (Ratio/Practical Directions)

Legal outcome: Appeal dismissed. Costs imposed on the appellant for unnecessary interference in the resolution process and directed distribution to operational creditors or asset pool outside the plan per waterfall mechanism.

Procedural guidance (Obiter with practical import): PRAs/unsecured RAs may lodge memos of objection to bring material irregularities to the Adjudicating Authority, which should address such objections during Section 31 consideration to avoid parallel proceedings and delay. Consideration suggested for regulatory measures to track PRA conduct and potentially blacklist serial non-serious participants; EoI filings may require disclosure of prior resolution participation history.

---