TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (2) TMI 1966
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Resolution Professional does not propose to file a reply. We record the statement. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. This appeal has been filed against order of the Adjudicating Authority dated 13.01.2025 by which order application filed by the Appellant being IA No.331/2024 has been rejected. 3. Brief facts necessary to be noticed for deciding this appeal are: 3.1 CIRP against the Corporate Debtor - Rolta Bi & Big Data Analytics Pvt. Ltd. commenced on 13.10.2023. Form A was published on 16.10.2023 and last date was 28.10.2023. Appellant's case is that it entered into Assignment Agreement on 06.11.2023 with Rolta Pvt. Ltd. and in terms of the said Assignment Agreement, Rolta Pvt. Ltd. assigned the debt for an amount of Rs.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ently, Assignment Agreement was entered between the Appellant and Rolta Pvt. Ltd. on 06.11.2023 and on that basis the Appellant claim to be member of the CoC. The judgment in Phoenix ARC Private Limited has been relied by the Appellant in Para 100, 101 & 102, which is as follows: "100. Therefore, it could be stated that where a financial creditor seeks a position on the CoC on the basis of a debt which was created when it was a related party of the corporate debtor, the exclusion which is created by the first proviso to Section 21(2) must apply. For, it is on the strength of the financial debt as defined in Section 5(8) that an entity claiming as a financial creditor under Section 5(7) seeks a position on the CoC under Section 21(2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gns her debt to a third party in good faith, such third party should not be disqualified from participating, voting or being represented in a meeting of the CoC. 11.10. However, the Committee discussed that in certain cases, a related party creditor may assign its debts with the intention of circumventing the disability imposed under the first proviso to Section 21(2) by indirectly participating in the CoC through the assignee. As a related party is expressly prohibited from participating in the CoC, it cannot do so indirectly by assigning its debt to a third-party assignee for the purposes of circumventing this restriction. Therefore, in order to prevent any misuse, the Committee recommended that prior to including an assignee of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se where the related party financial creditor divests itself of its shareholding or ceases to become a related party in a business capacity with the sole intention of participating in the CoC and sabotage the CIRP, by diluting the vote share of other creditors or otherwise, it would be in keeping with the object and purpose of the first proviso to Section 21(2), to consider the former related party creditor, as one debarred under the first proviso." 9. Learned counsel for the Appellant has pointed out the reply, which was filed by the Resolution Professional before the Adjudicating Authority. Resolution Professional clearly opposed the claim of the Appellant to be given seat in the CoC. Para 5 of the Reply gives details of the facts, whi....