Locus standi and Section 29A disqualification under IBC must be strictly established; remote grievance and mere association were insufficient.

A person seeking to appeal under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code must be directly and legally affected by the impugned order; a remote grievance arising from separate insolvency proceedings is insufficient, so the appellant lacked locus standi. On merits, alleged ineligibility of the successful resolution applicant under Section 29A was not proved because mere association with another CIRP entity did not establish the statutory disqualification, and no formal disqualification under Section 164 of the Companies Act was shown. The challenge based on suppression also failed because new grounds could not be raised for the first time in appeal. The approved resolution plan was left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellant had locus standi to maintain the appeal as a person aggrieved under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; (ii) whether the impugned order approving the resolution plan suffered from illegality on account of the alleged ineligibility of the successful resolution applicant under Section 29A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 or alleged suppression of material facts.

Issue (i): Whether the appellant had locus standi to maintain the appeal as a person aggrieved under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Analysis: The right of appeal under Section 61 is available to a person aggrieved, meaning one whose legal rights or interests are directly affected by the impugned order. The appellant was not a stakeholder in the corporate insolvency resolution process of the corporate debtor whose resolution plan was approved, had not participated before the adjudicating authority, and asserted grievance arising only from separate proceedings concerning another corporate debtor. Remote or collateral grievance was held insufficient to confer appellate locus.

Conclusion: The appellant was not a person aggrieved and lacked locus standi to maintain the appeal.

Issue (ii): Whether the impugned order approving the resolution plan suffered from illegality on account of the alleged ineligibility of the successful resolution applicant under Section 29A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 or alleged suppression of material facts.

Analysis: Ineligibility under Section 29A was not established. Mere association with another company undergoing CIRP did not, by itself, attract disqualification under Section 29A(c) in the absence of material showing NPA classification. Likewise, Section 29A(e) could not be invoked without a formal disqualification under Section 164 of the Companies Act, 2013 by the competent authority. No such declaration was shown. The challenge based on suppression also failed, and new grounds could not be raised for the first time in appeal. The resolution plan had already been approved and implemented, and had earlier been upheld in related proceedings.

Conclusion: No illegality in the approval of the resolution plan was established, and the alleged ineligibility of the resolution applicant was not made out.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed both on maintainability and on merits, and the approval of the resolution plan was left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: A remote or collateral grievance arising from separate insolvency proceedings does not confer locus under Section 61, and ineligibility under Section 29A must be shown by satisfying the statutory disqualifications on the basis of a formal and operative legal disqualification, not by mere assumption or association.

---