https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465251 The NCLAT (Chennai) dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant, holding that a Prospective Resolution Applicant (PRA) lacks locus standi under Section 61 of the IBC to challenge the impugned order. The Tribunal found that the appellant, whose status as a PRA was undisputed, had merely expressed interest in submitting a resolution plan and had not yet submitted any proposal. Consequently, no legal or material right of the appellant was prejudicially affected by the order of the Adjudicating Authority. As the appellant was not an "aggrieved person" and had no actionable cause, the appeal was held non-maintainable and dismissed. en-us Thu, 27 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 12 Dec 2025 20:19:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465251 The NCLAT (Chennai) dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant, holding that a Prospective Resolution Applicant (PRA) lacks locus standi under Section 61 of the IBC to challenge the impugned order. The Tribunal found that the appellant, whose status as a PRA was undisputed, had merely expressed interest in submitting a resolution plan and had not yet submitted any proposal. Consequently, no legal or material right of the appellant was prejudicially affected by the order of the Adjudicating Authority. As the appellant was not an "aggrieved person" and had no actionable cause, the appeal was held non-maintainable and dismissed. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 27 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465251