Final rejection of intervention bars later appeal against liquidation order under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.

The right of appeal under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 is confined to a person aggrieved, and that status is affected by prior final orders in the same proceedings. Where an intervention application had been disposed of and the rejection was not challenged, it attained finality and the appellant could not bypass that order to assail the later liquidation order as an aggrieved person. The earlier orders closing the stay and intervention applications therefore controlled standing in the appeal, and the challenge to the liquidation order was not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant, whose intervention application had been disposed of and who did not challenge that order, could still maintain an appeal against the liquidation order under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Analysis: The right of appeal under Section 61 is available to a person aggrieved, but that status depends on the legal effect of prior orders. The appellant had sought intervention in the liquidation proceedings, and the Tribunal's order disposing of that application was treated as a rejection of intervention. Since that order was not challenged, it attained finality. In these circumstances, the appellant could not bypass the concluded order on intervention and directly assail the liquidation order as an aggrieved person. The earlier orders closing the stay application and the intervention application therefore controlled the appellant's standing in the appeal.

Conclusion: The appellant was not entitled to maintain the appeal against the liquidation order, and the challenge failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A party whose request to intervene has been finally rejected and who does not challenge that rejection cannot later invoke the appellate remedy as a person aggrieved against the subsequent substantive order in the same proceedings.

---