Locus standi in insolvency proceedings was denied where a shareholder tried to reopen a final resolution plan and repeat fraud allegations.

A shareholder was treated as lacking locus standi to maintain an application or company appeal challenging concluded insolvency proceedings and an approved resolution plan, because the earlier CIRP, plan approval, and related challenges had already attained finality. A later attempt to reopen the concluded CIRP on allegations of fraud was held not maintainable where the same issues had been repeatedly raised and rejected, the plan had been implemented, and material facts were said to have been concealed. The continued invocation of the same grounds was characterised as an abuse of process, and the rejection of the later applications was sustained with costs.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a shareholder had locus standi to maintain the application and the present company appeal challenging the earlier insolvency proceedings and the approved resolution plan. (ii) Whether the later application seeking to reopen the concluded CIRP and allege fraud was maintainable in view of the finality already attained and the conduct of the appellant.

Issue (i): Whether a shareholder had locus standi to maintain the application and the present company appeal challenging the earlier insolvency proceedings and the approved resolution plan.

Analysis: The challenge was examined against the appellant's admitted status as a shareholder. The proceedings relating to admission of CIRP, approval of the resolution plan, and subsequent challenges had already been carried through earlier rounds of adjudication. In that context, the appellant was found not to be a person entitled to agitate the cause in his individual capacity on behalf of the corporate debtor. The earlier decisions had already treated the resolution plan as implemented and concluded, leaving no surviving personal grievance that could support the present challenge.

Conclusion: The shareholder lacked locus standi to maintain the application and the appeal.

Issue (ii): Whether the later application seeking to reopen the concluded CIRP and allege fraud was maintainable in view of the finality already attained and the conduct of the appellant.

Analysis: The earlier proceedings on the same foundation had been conclusively decided, and the approval of the resolution plan had attained finality after dismissal of the earlier appellate proceedings and the further challenge before the Supreme Court, followed by dismissal of review. The later application was filed after a substantial delay and sought to revive issues that had already been negatived. The Tribunal found concealment of material facts, repetition of earlier grounds, and an attempt to use the forum for a collateral criminal-law style invocation under the guise of insolvency proceedings. Such repeated invocation of the same allegations was treated as an abuse of process and not a maintainable basis to disturb concluded proceedings.

Conclusion: The later application was not maintainable and was rightly rejected as an abuse of process.

Final Conclusion: The company appeal failed, the impugned rejection of the later applications was sustained, and costs were imposed for abuse of the judicial process.

Ratio Decidendi: A shareholder cannot maintain insolvency-related proceedings to reopen a resolution plan that has attained finality, and repetitive allegations of fraud after conclusion of the CIRP are barred as an abuse of process.

---