Settlement and withdrawal in insolvency proceedings bars stranger intervention and renders the admission-order challenge infructuous.

After settlement of the operational debt dispute and the proposed withdrawal of the company petition, a third party who had not been impleaded before the adjudicating authority and was not shown to be a necessary party could not insist on being heard in the appeal. The original operational creditor, as dominus litis, was entitled to withdraw the Section 9 proceedings, and once that settlement resolved the dispute, the basis of the admission order ceased to survive. The appellate challenge therefore became infructuous, the intervention request was rejected, and the appeal was disposed of on withdrawal without examination of the merits.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a third party, not impleaded before the adjudicating authority and not shown to be a necessary party, could insist on being heard in the appeal after the original operational creditor decided to withdraw the company petition; (ii) whether the appeal could survive after the parties recorded a settlement and the company petition was to be withdrawn.

Issue (i): Whether a third party, not impleaded before the adjudicating authority and not shown to be a necessary party, could insist on being heard in the appeal after the original operational creditor decided to withdraw the company petition.

Analysis: The party seeking impleadment had not filed any impleadment application before the tribunal and had not been a party to the company petition. The original applicant under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, being dominus litis, had recorded a settlement and expressed its decision to withdraw the proceedings. In those circumstances, no third party could compel impleadment or claim a right to oppose the withdrawal.

Conclusion: The request of the third party to intervene or be impleaded was not accepted.

Issue (ii): Whether the appeal could survive after the parties recorded a settlement and the company petition was to be withdrawn.

Analysis: The settlement terms showed full and final resolution of the operational debt dispute, partial payment having been made and the balance secured by post-dated cheques. Once the company petition was to be withdrawn by the operational creditor, the basis of the impugned admission order ceased to survive and there was no occasion to examine the merits of that order.

Conclusion: The appeal did not survive and was disposed of on withdrawal.

Final Conclusion: The settlement between the parties rendered the insolvency proceedings unnecessary, and the appeal was closed without adjudication on the merits of the admission order.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the original applicant in insolvency proceedings, as dominus litis, elects to withdraw the petition after settlement, a stranger to the proceedings cannot insist upon impleadment, and the appellate challenge to the admission order becomes infructuous.

---