TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (6) TMI 1529
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....IB) No. 299/7/HDB/2018. 2. By the said Impugned Order under challenge, NCLT, Hyderabad, allowed the Application IA (IBC)/897/2024 & IA (IBC)/898/2024 filed under Section 60(5) of the I & B Code, 2016, by Respondent No. 1 herein, holding him to be eligible to submit a Resolution Plan and permitting him to participate as a Resolution Applicant. Aggrieved by the said Order, this Appeal has been filed. 3. Brief facts of the case are; (i) CIRP proceedings were initiated against the Corporate Debtor M/s. NCS Sugars Limited on 24.06.2022, based on Section 7 Application filed by Punjab National Bank (Financial Creditor). (ii) Resolution Professional invited expression of interest, calling for Prospective Resolution Applicants in Form G on 19.09.2022, 05.10.2022, 05.02.2024 and 24.02.2024. (iii) Appellant expressed his interest to participate as Resolution Applicant by a letter dated 19.09.2023 to RP and submitted his Application on 05.03.2024. (iv) Committee of Creditors (CoC) in its 18th Meeting dated 07.03.2024 disqualified Respondent No. 1 from participating in CIRP citing Section 29A (b) & (f) of I & B Code, 2016. (v) On 20.03.2024, Re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to apply as a Resolution Applicant. Interim Order does not change that status and hence, if he is allowed as Resolution Applicant, substantial damage will be done to the Insolvency Resolution Process of the Corporate Debtor. 8. He has further contended that under the garb of the said Interim Order, the Respondent No. 1 cannot be absolved from the trap of being the `Wilful Defaulter', till the issue is finally adjudicated about eligibility by the Hon'ble High Court and that the NCLT has erroneously interpreted the implications of the Interim Order which was granted by the Hon'ble High Court of Telangana, with regards to the eligibility and has erred in permitting Respondent No. 1 to submit a Resolution Plan, thus, giving a way for him to gain a leverage over the others, for the purposes of participation in the process of the CIRP (Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process). 9. It is not in doubt that the Appellant was one of the Prospective Resolution Applicants, and it is possible that he was agitating a cause on behalf of such 16 eligible PRAs who were alleged to have shown interest in submitting their Resolution Plan. However, no Resolution Plans were actually submitted at t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... would be as to whether he could at all be held to be personally aggrieved by the Impugned Order, as there is no direct prejudice to his legal rights, being caused by the Impugned Order, passed in IA (IBC)/897/2024 apart from the allegations that CIRP with respect to the Corporate Debtor will suffer irreparable damage. 15. The Learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant, in support of his contentions that he is an Aggrieved Person while challenging the Impugned Order, has relied upon the Judgement dated 24.01.2024, as rendered by the Principal Bench, NCLAT, New Delhi, in the matters of Comp. App (AT) (INS) No. 1650 / 2023, PRIO S.A. v. Mr. Pravin R. Navandar & 2 Ors. Particularly, he has made reference to Para 10 of the said Judgment, in the context as to whether at all the present Appellant in his status of being the PRA has, any legally vested right to pursue the proceedings, by way of Company Appeal against the decision impugned in the Appeal. Para 9 & 10 of the Judgment in PRIO S.A. v. Mr. Pravin R. Navandar & 2 Ors., is extracted hereunder: "9. The impugned order of the Adjudicating Authority clearly indicates that Adjudicating Authority proceeded to consider the obje....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gned Order where his intervention was rejected. 18. The above case is materially different from the instant case, where the Appellant seeking to challenge the Order of NCLT is merely a Prospective Resolution Applicant, has only submitted his Expression of Interest and his Offer has not yet been overlooked in favour of Respondent No. 1 herein, by virtue of the Impugned Order. 19. The Learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant had relied upon yet another Judgment, as it has been rendered by this Bench of the NCLAT in Comp. App (AT) (CH) (INS) No. 166 of 2021, Committee of Creditors of Meenakshi Energy Limited v. Consortium of Prudent ARC and another, to support his claim of having a right to Appeal against the Impugned Order. 20. In the case at hand, Appeal had been preferred against the Order of NCLT in rejecting the Application in IA No. 244 /2021, which had been preferred in the connected Company Petition. This case is on a different pedestal altogether, where the Committee of Creditors had extended the timelines for the RFRP while dealing with the Resolution Plans which had been submitted before it, as per the earlier timelines for consideration and secondly, where the que....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dent/Prospective Resolution Applicant to file IA No.244/2021 and the 'Maintainability' of the 'Application', (although the said pleas were taken by the Committee of Creditors of Meenakshi Energy Ltd as well as by the Resolution Professional) to the effect that 'as on date, 'no adjudication' has been made in regard to the 'Resolution Plan'. However, keeping in mind the jurisdiction of the 'Adjudicating Authority', (National Company Law Tribunal) as per ingredients of Section 60(5)(c) of the I&B Code, 2016, 'this Tribunal' holds that the 'Adjudicating Authority' (National Company Law Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench-II) is entitled to determine the question of priorities, question of law or facts arising out of or in relation to Insolvency Resolution (relating to the 'Corporate Debtor') in I.A. No.244 of 2021 in CP (IB) No. 184/HDB/7/2019 and to dispose of the same on merits, of course, by passing a reasoned/speaking order.'' 26. With due reverence at our command, we are of the view that vide Para 90 of the Judgment an interference was made by this Tribunal, because the question of Locus and Maintainability, in the said case was not considered by the Learned Adjudicating Authority, and n....