TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (4) TMI 72
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he is aggrieved by the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority. The provisions of Section 61 of the Code does not restrict any party from approaching the Appellate forum, if he finds, that any of his rights are infringed by orders passed by the Learned NCLT, in any of the proceedings contemplated, herein in the Code. Be that as it may. In the instant Company Appeal, the Appellant puts a challenge to the impugned order of 12.11.2025, as passed on IA/IBC (LIQ)/10 (CHE)/2024 as rendered in CP(IBC)/140 (CHE)/2022, under Section 33(1) to be read with Section 34 of I&B Code, by virtue of which the Corporate Debtor M/s. Fossil Logistics Pvt Ltd. has been placed in liquidation. 2. It will not be out of context herein, to refer that, earlier an order of CIRP was passed as against the Corporate Debtor on 15.06.2023 by NCLT, and the same had been affirmed by NCLAT vide order dated 18.04.2024. Subsequently the Appellant had invoked the proceedings under Section 62 of the Code, by filing Civil Appeal No. 7231/2024 before the Hon'ble Apex Court, challenging the orders of this Appellate Tribunal, confirming the commencement of the CIRP proceedings against the Corporate Debtor. It is inf....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the liquidation, which was contrary to the intention that was expressed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in its order passed on 29.11.2024. 5. During the intervening period, after the order had been rendered on IA No. 1647/2024 on 04.03.2025, the Appellant had filed yet another Intervention Petition (IBC)/4(CHE)/2025, in IA(IBC)(Liq)/10 (CHE)/2024, which was an IA praying for passing of an order of liquidation under Section 33. In the said IA, the Appellant had prayed for the following reliefs: "In view of the facts mentioned above, the Applicant prays for the following reliefs": a) To allow the intervention of the applicant in the present application. b) To take on record the additional affidavit filed by the Applicant herein on 18.01.2025, bearing e-filing No. 330511802757204 in IA (IBC) No. 1647/2024 and consider the same before passing any order. c) Any other relief, which this Tribunal may deem fit. 6. If we take the said relief as it was prayed for in Intervention Petition (IBC)/4(CHE)/2025, by the Appellant into consideration context of the entire factual backdrop of the controversy, the Appellant had, by projecting the summary of his rights ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e treated to be a denial of his plea to intervene in the proceedings of liquidation. The orders dated 07.07.2025, admittedly has not been put to challenge and thus has attained finality. 9. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has canvassed before us, that the order passed on 07.07.2025 on his intervention application will not create any impediment as such for him to contest the proceedings of liquidation. He has based his contention on following grounds:- 1. The order of 07.07.2025 may not be taken as to be an order on merits of his intervention application. Further, even if it is considered that the intervention application has been closed on merits, then too in the light of the provisions contained under Section 61 governing the Appellate Jurisdiction, since it prescribes for "any aggrieved person", to approach the Appellate Tribunal, as against an order passed under I&B Code, he would still have the right to put a challenge to the impugned order of liquidation, by preferring the instant Company Appeal. 2. Because his material right is being prejudiced, he will have the right to put a challenge to the said order of liquidation. 10. There can not be any do....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he proceedings before the Learned Tribunal. In these conditions once the said application has been taken up for consideration and has been closed as 'disposed of', the logical inference that could be drawn is, that the Tribunal had consciously declined to permit his intervention after taking into consideration, the grounds pleaded for permitting him to intervene. In that view of the matter, once the intervention petition was disposed of, with the Appellant having been determined to be not 'a necessary party' to the proceedings, he will automatically be precluded from being an aggrieved person, who could take the liberty of filing of an Appeal under Section 61, because for the purposes of an aggrieved person under Section 61. In other words, since the Appellant has been determined to be non-suited, he cannot by virtue of filing of an Appeal, introduce himself to the proceedings, overriding the order dated 07.07.2025, rejecting his intervention application. 12. So far as the second argument extended by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant is concerned, though marginally we have already dealt with in the preceding paragraphs, as to what would be the effect of the t....