TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 35
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that, has chanced in preferring the Company Appeal, by filing IA No. 1121 / 2025. 4. According to the pleadings raised by Appellant there happens to be 13 days of delay that has chanced in preferring the Appeal, which has been otherwise reported by the Registry to be 12 days. 5. Having considered the reasons which has been given, particularly on the ground that the impugned order itself was uploaded on 27.03.2025 and 30 days from the said date i.e. 27.03.2025, would be expiring on 26.04.2025 and as the Company Appeal was preferred on 07.05.2025, the number of days of delay that, has chanced will be falling well within the upper time limit of 45 days as prescribed under the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 61 of I & B Code, 2016. Thus, owing to the reasons, which has been given in Para Nos. 3.2 & 3.3, since being satisfactory, the 12 days of delay that has chanced in preferring the Appeal would stand condoned. 6. The controversy at hand, takes its birth from an order that, was passed by the Ld. NCLT-II, Hyderabad, on IA (IBC) / 439 / 2025 which was preferred in CP (IB) No. 296 / 7 / HDB / 2022. The consequential effect of passing of the impugned order was, that the Int....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ocess, the Corporate Debtor had entered into an agreement for sale with Neha Kausar Hafeezunnisa Begum, Srinivas Kalluri, Rajni Kalluri and M.V.M. Mohan and received the entire payment, but, could not execute the Sale Deed, because of disputes between the Corporate Debtor and Telangana State Housing Board (TSHB) that subsequent to the filing of the Application for seeking approval of the Resolution Plan i.e. IA (IBC) (Plan) No. 8 / 2024, these purchasers who could not get the title of the units purchased, transferred in their name due to the prevailing dispute between the Corporate Debtor and Telangana State Housing Board, approached Ld. Adjudicating Authority by filing IA No. 384 / 2024, IA No. 971/2024 & IA No 1815 / 2024, for redressal of their grievances. All these Interlocutory Applications were disposed of by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority, with a direction to the Resolution Professional to include the liabilities of the Corporate Debtor towards the said Applicants, in the Information Memorandum and if it is already included, to inform the Applicants about the same within 7 days from the date of passing of the order. However, despite of the aforesaid directions, the Responden....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 12. He had further stated that the Appellant herein, had preferred two Company Appeals being Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (INS) No. 342 / 2024 & Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (INS) No. 343 / 2024, as against the dismissal of the above two Applications, which were heard by this Appellate Tribunal and decided together by the Judgment dated 20.12.2024, in which the Appeals were dismissed. 13. The Ld. Adjudicating Authority, after hearing both sides had recorded in its findings that the Appellant was shortlisted as a PRA, that he failed to submit his Resolution Plan within stipulated deadline of 18.03.2024, that almost a year later, when the Resolution Plan is reserved for orders, he has prayed for issue of fresh Form G on the grounds of the Information Memorandum being incomplete and defective, that the so-called defects in Information Memorandum are not material enough to warrant issue of Form G afresh, that no grounds have been made out to show violation of Section 30(2) of I & B Code, and that the Appellant / Applicant has no locus to challenge the Resolution Plan, not being a Resolution Applicant and having got his Application before NCLT and his Appeal before NCLAT, challenging the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Resolution Plan of the Appellant has been rejected, he will not be falling within the domain of an aggrieved person, which could grant him, with the liberty to put a challenge to process of the approval of the Resolution Plan. Owing to the above the Appeals aforesaid lack merit and the same are accordingly dismissed.'' 16. As far as the Judgment rendered by us on 20.12.2024 in Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (INS) No. 342 / 2024 & Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (INS) No. 343/ 2024 is concerned, it is not the case of the Appellant that, the said Judgment was ever challenged by him before the Hon'ble Apex Court and hence, we have to proceed on the premise that, the order of Ld. NCLT rejecting the prayer of the Appellant to permit him to intervene in the Company Petition deciding on the Resolution Plan which was affirmed by us on 20.12.2024, has reached finality and therefore, as of now, the Appellant would not have any locus as such, to again challenge the same Resolution Plan in the garb of alleging deficiencies and short comings in the Information Memorandum by filing an IA (IBC) No. 439 / 2025 which has rightly been rejected by Ld. NCLT, 17. There would be a few reasons, as to why th....