TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (6) TMI 1306
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er (Judicial)] 15.06.2026: The Appellant in the proceedings enjoys the status of being that of the Prospective Resolution Applicant in relation to the proceedings that have been drawn as against the Corporate Debtor namely M/s. Amar Prakaash Developers Private Limited. The Appellant stands before this Appellate Tribunal alleging a glaring error in the impugned order of 27.02.2026, which was rendered in CP (IB)/73(CHE)/2022 along with a number of interlocutory applications filed therein. In this company appeal we would be concerned with the order rendered in IA (IBC)/1985(CHE)/2025 that has been preferred by the Appellant, which, by the impugned order, has been directed to be listed along with the application, i.e., IA (IBC)Plan/11(CHE)/2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... d. non-provision of regulatory fee to be paid to IBBI contrary to Regulation 39(4) of CIRP Regulations. e. non-furnishing of details of PUFE applications and views of CoC on the same. f. non-payment of performance-based incentive to the RP despite approval of CoC of the same in its 4th meeting. g. there is discrimination among secured financial creditors in terms of payment proposed to them without any reason recorded for the same. 4. The Ld. Tribunal after taking note of the shortcomings as above, took the view that, the matter was required to be remitted to the CoC for reconsideration of the Resolution Plan and the following orders were passed: - "The matter is remitted back to the CoC in terms of R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., in which the Resolution Plan has been submitted for approval, as the same was deferred to be considered upon submission of the decision to be taken by the CoC on the Resolution Plan, as directed by the first part of the order. 7. In IA (IBC) 1985 (CHE) 2025, which has been preferred by the Appellant, the Appellant had prayed for the following reliefs: - "That considering the factual position mentioned above it is humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to pass an order and/or directions: A. Allow the Applicant to intervene in the I.A. 11/2025 i.e. Resolution Plan approval Application. B. To hold that the Resolution Plan of (Aadarsh Surana, suspended director) pending for approval before th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the Appellant is before this Appellate Tribunal against the impugned order, in fact there is no decision on merits on IA/(IBC)/1985(CHE)/2025, because the same has been directed to be considered upon submission of the report by the RP, upon discussion of the plan by the CoC. Thus, the decision on the application was yet to be considered when the plan was being presented for its consideration before the Ld. Adjudicating Authority for its approval, as directed in the first part of the order, to be placed on 23.03.2026. 10. Surprisingly and for the reasons best known to the Appellant, the Appellant in the instant company appeal has prayed for the following reliefs: - "AN APPEAL UNDER SECTION 61(1) OF INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY COD....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....roceeded with and which is reserved to be considered on meris upon submission of the plan by the CoC in pursuance to the order of 27.02.2026. 14. The Ld. Counsel for the Appellant has attempted to address upon the necessity for being made as a party to the proceedings where the plan was being considered before the CoC. We are apprehensive to accept that argument for the reason being that, the Appellant happens to be a Resolution Applicant and as such he at this juncture when the plan was directed to be reconsidered by way of revision by the CoC, the Appellant may not become the necessary party who could have been considered at all by the CoC and hence no orders could have been passed at this stage by this Appellate Tribunal on IA (IBC) 1....