In the matter of Golden Tobaccco Limited
- CitationIA No.357 & 1058 of 2023 in CP(IB) No. 268 of 2020
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
A person who is not a party to an insolvency application, and against whom no relief is sought in it, has no locus standi to be impleaded as a respondent merely because an order in that application may affect its interests; impleadment is confined to those against whom the prayers are directed, or whose presence is necessary for the proper adjudication of the matter. Where the allegations in an application are directed against the Resolution Professional, the Resolution Professional alone is the proper respondent for the purpose of adjudicating that application, and a Committee of Creditors member who is not the object of any prayer or allegation need not be made a party, even though it holds a substantial voting share.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
The case is fixed for pronouncement of the order. The order is pronounced in the open court, vide separate sheet
-sd- -sd- DR. V. G. VENKATA CHALAPATHY CHITRA HANKARE MEMBER (TECHNICAL) MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
IA No.1058 of 2023 IN IA No.357 of 2023 IN CP(IB) No. 268 of 2020 AHMEDABAD (COURT - II) IA No.1058 of 2023 IN IA No.357 of 2023 IN CP(IB) No. 268 of 2020 (Filed under Section 60(5) read with Section 18(f) and Section 25 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016)
IN THE MATTER OF:
Arrow Engineering Ltd. …Applicant
IN THE MATTER OF: Suraksha Realty Ltd. … Applicant Versus AVM Resolution Professionals LLP … Respondent
IN THE MATTER OF: Arrow Engineering Limited …Financial Creditor Versus Golden Tobaccco Limited …Corporate Debtor
Order pronounced on 22.03.2024
IA No.1058 of 2023 IN IA No.357 of 2023 IN CP(IB) No. 268 of 2020 Coram: MRS. CHITRA HANKARE HON’BLE MEMBER (JUDICIAL) MR. VELAMUR G VENKATA CHALAPATHY HON’BLE MEMBER (TECHNICAL)
MEMO OF PARTIES
IN THE MATTER OF: Arrow Engineering Ltd. Arrow House No.1, Arrow City Manhattan Village Kandalepada, Tal: Pen, Goa Highway, NH-17, Raigarh Raigarh – MY- 402107IN …Applicant
Present: For the Applicant : Mr. Robin Jaisinghani Adv. a/w. Mr. Jacinta D Silva, Adv. For the RP : Mr. Anurag Bisaria, Adv. For the Respondent : Mr. Saurabh Soparkar, Sr. Adv. a.w Mr. Jay Kansara, Adv. & Ms. Adrita Bhuyan
IA No.1058 of 2023 IN IA No.357 of 2023 IN CP(IB) No. 268 of 2020 JUDGEMENT
1. The present application is filed by Arrow Engineering Limited (hereinafter referred to as AEL) seeking impleadment in IA 357 of 2023 and requesting for such further and other orders as this Hon’ble Tribunal deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 2. The grounds on which impleadment in IA 357 of 2023 is sought is that in IA 357 of 2023 the Applicant therein has made several allegations against the present applicant including that the IRP is colluding with the AEL in order to prejudice the rights of the other financial creditors. 3. Applicant submitted that any order in favour of applicant in IA 357 of 2023 is bound to adversely affect the interest of the present Applicants viz. AEL. The Applicant submitted that the present Applicant is entitled to an opportunity of hearing to oppose IA 357. 4. Respondent submitted that the present application is not maintainable in law, as AEL has no locus and is not a proper and necessary party in IA 357 of 2023. Respondent further
IA No.1058 of 2023 IN IA No.357 of 2023 IN CP(IB) No. 268 of 2020 submitted that this Tribunal in IA 777 of 2022 has already adjudicated upon the impleadment the present applicant (financial creditor) which is a proceeding filed by other financial creditors regarding their claim and has categorically held that issues regarding rejection of the claims are between the IRP and claimants and thus other third parties have no locus in the matter. This ex-facie demonstrates that AEL has no locus to be added as a party to the said application. In fact, the aforesaid order dated 21.12.2022 has not been challenged by AEL and has therefore attained finality. Respondent further submitted that the present IA is barred by res-judicata and is therefore illegal, and ought to be rejected. 5. The Resolution Professional, the respondent in IA 357 of 2023 by way of affidavit dated 26.02.2024 submitted to have no objection if the present applicant is also impleaded as a party respondent in the IA 357 of 2023 so as to afford it an opportunity to directly respond to the allegations that have been made against the applicant therein.
IA No.1058 of 2023 IN IA No.357 of 2023 IN CP(IB) No. 268 of 2020 6. Heard the applicant and the respondent and perused the documents submitted. It is pertinent to note that the applicant has also been the participant in the CoC constituted on acceptance of claims from creditors of the Corporate Debtor and contributes to 98% of the voting shares of CoC. Neither stated collusion between the Resolution Professional and present applicant have been established by any document produced by the respondent either in this matter or in the IA 357 of 2023. The applicant in IA 357 of 2023 have also not made any prayers against the present applicant for not considering his claims or his removal from the CoC. The matter under reference in that IA and prayers is for their consideration as a claimant for principal and interest with secured status which is yet to be adjudicated. Hence there would be no locus standi of present applicant to be made a respondent in the IA 357 of 2023 as the prayers sought do not have any bearing against the any allegations, if any, made against the applicant. It is for the Resolution Professional to reply the facts of the case. Accordingly the respondent in the IA No.1058 of 2023 IN IA No.357 of 2023 IN CP(IB) No. 268 of 2020 matter is restricted to the Resolution Professional and none other for the purpose of adjudication of the IA 357/2023 by this Tribunal. 7. Hence we pass the following order: ORDER
IA 1058/2023 in IA 357/2023 in CP(IB) 268 of 2020 is rejected.
-sd- -sd- DR.V. G. VENKATA CHALAPATHY CHITRA HANKARE MEMBER (TECHNICAL) MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free