Interups Inc vs Kuldeep Kumar Bassi & Ors Resolution ...

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1079 of 2020 [Arising out of Order dated 26.10.2020 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in CA 1393(PB)/2019 (Resolution Plan Approval Application) and CA No. 2875(PB)/2020 (New Resolution Applicant's Application) in CP No.(IB)-50(PB)/2018]

In the matter of: Interups Inc. 90 State Street, Office 700 - Suite 40 Albany Ny 12207 Through its authorized Representative Mr. Mahesh Kumar Vellaboyina, Having his address for communication at Plot No.86, Road No.2, Dhanalaxmi Society, Mahendra Hills, Hyderabad - 500 026 ...Appellant

Versus

1.Kuldeep Kumar Bassi (Resolution Professional of Asian Colour Coated Ispat Limited) Unit No.410, Level 4, Centrum Plaza, Glof Course road, Sector 53, Gurugram- 122 001 Harayana . ...Respondent No.1

2. Committee of Creditors of Asian Colour Coated Ispat Limited Unit No.410, Level 4, Centrum Plaza, Glof Course road, Sector 53, Gurugram- 122 001 Harayana. ...Respondent No.2

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1079 of 2020

Page 1 of 19 3.JSW Steel Coated Products Limited (through its Authorised Representative) JSW Centre Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East) Mumbai - 450 051 ...Respondent No.3

Present:

For Appellant: Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Senior Advocate with Mr. Abhishek Anand, Mr. Kunal Godhwani, Mr. Divyanshu Srivastav, Mr. Mohak Sharma, Mr. Viren Sharma, Mr. Pathik Choudhury and Mr. Rahul Adlakha, Advocates.

For Respondents: Mr. Ramji Srinivasan, Senior Advocate with Ms. Pooja Mahajan, Mr. Savar Mahajan, Ms. Mohana Nijhawan, Ms. Avni Shrivastava, Advocates for R- 1. Mr. Ankur Mittal, Ms. Meera Murali, Advocates for R-2. Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Senior Advocate with Mr. Bishwajit Dubey, Mr. Shatrajit Banerji, Mr. Aditya Jindal and Ms. Madhavi Khanna, Advocates for R-3

ORDER

1. The present Appeal is filed by the Appellant under Section 61 of the

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (in short 'Code') against the

Impugned order dated 26.10.2020 passed by the Adjudicating Authority

(National Company Law Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi ) in relation,

to CA No.1393(PB)/2019 (which was filed for approval of the Resolution

Plan with respect to the Corporate Debtor) and CA No.2875(PB)/2020

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1079 of 2020

Page 2 of 19 (which was filed by the Appellant seeking directions for consideration of

its resolution proposal) in CP No. (IB)- 50(PB)/2018.

2. The Appellant has a grievance that he has submitted his Expression of

Interest (EOI) on 12.06.2020 and the Resolution Professional has not

placed before Committee of Creditor (CoC) for consideration of its proposal

inspite of the offer of the Appellant to pay an amount of Rs. 2000 Crore

towards full and final settlement of outstanding debt of Corporate Debtor

and Appellant being ready and willing to deposit a sum of Rs. 1000 Crore

in Escrow account, if its proposal is allowed to be submitted, Resolution

Plan amount would be 33% more than the amount offered by Respondent

No.3 (Approved Resolution Applicant). However, the present Resolution

Plan has emerged out of invitation for Expression of Interest inviting

prospective Resolution Applicant on 01.10.2018.

3. The issue raised in this appeal filed by the Appellant for assailing the

approved Resolution Plan of 'JSW Steel Coated Products Ltd' (the Approved

Resolution Applicant) is that the Successful Resolution Plan is non-

compliant as regard the mandate of Section 30(2) of the Code, 2016. The

Appellant has also raised that the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process

(for short 'CIRP') defined period has already expired on 16.04.2019 and yet

to approve CA 613 of 2019 for exclusion of time. In between the

Adjudicating Authority has approved the Resolution Plan on 19.10.2020

in CP(IB) No. 50(PB)/2018.

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1079 of 2020

Page 3 of 19

4. The Appellant has sought the following reliefs:

a. Quash and set aside the impugned order dated 26.10.2020

(Pronounced on 19.10.2020) passed by Adjudicating Authority in

relation to the CA No. 1393(PB)/2019 in CP No. (IB)- 50PB/2018 and

CA No. 1875(PB)/2020 in CP No. (IB) 50(PB)/2018;

b. Consequently, direct the CoC to consider the proposal of the Appellant,

for submission of detailed resolution plan, and put the same to voting

by CoC;

c. Pass such other consequential orders as may be deemed fit by this

Appellate Tribunal in order to meet the ends of the prayers at (a) and

(b). etc

5. However, this Appellate Tribunal, in its first hearing after hearing, learned

Senior Counsel Mr. Salman Kurshid, and Mr. Manu Singhvi, appearing for

R-3. Mr. Ramji Srinivasan, appearing on behalf of Respondent No.1 and

Mr. Angur Mittal, learned Advocate for Respondent No.2, asked the learned

counsels to provide chronology of events, leading to approval of Successful

Resolution Plan dealing with issue of maintainability of appeal and locus

of Appellant to question the approval of plan of successful resolution

applicant initially for consideration of appeal. In this context the Appellant

& Respondents submitted chronology of events commencing filing of

petition on 20.07.2018 to 19.10.2020.

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1079 of 2020

Page 4 of 19

6. The Appellant has submitted that any person may prefer an appeal before

the Appellate Tribunal. The Appeal against the order of approval of

Resolution Plan can be preferred on any of the ground as mentioned in the

Section 61(3) which includes material irregularity in exercise of the powers

by the Resolution Professional during the CIRP. It was also raised that the

Adjudicating Authority impugned order itself made a determination that

the Resolution Plan is in contravention to Section 30(2)(b) of the Code,

para 133 to 137 of the impugned order which deals with the issue of more

to Operational Creditor vis a vis dissenting unsecured Financial Creditors

which is in contravention of Section 30(2) read with Section 53(1) of the

Code. The Appellant has cited the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the

matter of Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Limited Vs. Satish

Kumar Gupta & Ors., (2019) SccOnline SC 1478 and held in para "73. If

the Adjudicating Authority finds, on a given set of facts, that the aforesaid

parameters have not been kept in view, it may send a resolution plan back

to the Committee of Creditors to re-submit such plan after satisfying the

aforesaid parameters. The reasons given by the Committee of Creditors

while approving a resolution plan may thus be looked at by the

Adjudicating Authority only from this point of view, and once it is satisfied

that the Committee of Creditors has paid attention to these key features,

it must then pass the resolution plan, other things being equal."

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1079 of 2020

Page 5 of 19 That from the above judgment, it is categorically clear that the

Adjudicating Authority is not empowered to modify the Resolution Plan

while exercising the limited jurisdiction. It is submitted that once the

Adjudicating Authority made a determination that the Resolution Plan is

not in compliance to the provisions of the Code then the only recourse

available with the Adjudicating Authority was to either reject the

Resolution Plan or send it back to CoC for reconsideration, subject to

CIRP period. Thus, the impugned order passed by the Adjudicating

Authority modifying the Resolution Plan is in excess of jurisdiction vested

with the Adjudicating Authority and it is settled principle of law that an

order passed without jurisdiction is nullity and hence, the impugned order

is liable to be set aside by this Appellate Tribunal.

Further, the Adjudicating Authority has approved the Resolution Plan in

a mechanical manner and has abdicated in its duty to confirm whether

the terms of the Resolution Plan are not in violative of provisions of Code

or other provisions of law. The Adjudicating Authority in last para of the

impugned order has itself recorded that entire resolution plan has not

been examined and whichever provision is inconsistent with Section

30(2)(e) of the Code, it shall be treated as not approved by Adjudicating

Authority. Relevant paragraph of the impugned order is reproduced herein

below:

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1079 of 2020

Page 6 of 19 "249..... for this plan is spread in various schedules running into several

pages, since all these aspects have not been brought to the notice of this

Bench at the time of making submissions, we hereby held that whichever

provisions is inconsistent with Section 30(2)(e) of the Code, it shall be

treated as not approved by this Bench."

It was also stated by the learned counsel for the Appellant that the Hon'ble

Apex Court Judgment in the mater of Arcelormittal India Private Limited

Vs. Satish Kumar Gupta and Ors. (2019) 2 SCC 1 as stated supra, it has

been held that the Resolution Professional is not required to take any

decision but merely to ensure that the Resolution Plan is submitted is

complete in all respects before they are placed before the CoC who may or

may not approve it and the Resolution Professional has committed ex-facie

illegal act not to place the Appellant request before the CoC and clearly

contravened the aforesaid Hon'ble Apex Court Judgment. The Appellant

has stated that two members of CoC i.e. Commercial Bank of Dubai and

IDBI Bank have expressed their willingness to consider the proposal of

Appellant but Resolution Professional has failed to place it before the CoC

so Resolution Professional failed to facilitate to place before the CoC and

has assumed the power of CoC this is fundamentally wrong and violative

of the provisions of the Code.

7. However, the Respondent No.1 i.e the Erstwhile Resolution Professional

has informed that the Resolution Plan has been Successful implemented

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1079 of 2020

Page 7 of 19 and the Successful Resolution Applicant (Respondent No.3) is now in

management and control of Asian Colour Coated Ispat Limited, corporate

debtor. The learned Sr. Counsel for Respondent No.1 has also submitted

the Resolution Plan of the Resolution Applicant was approved with 79.3%

voting of CoC on 20.06.2019 and the Applicant seeking approval of

Resolution Plan was filed by Resolution Professional under Section 31 of

the Code on 10.07.2019. Learned Sr. Counsel has also submitted that

Appeal to the Appellate Tribunal under Section 61(3) of the Code can be

filed only by "Person Aggrieved" on grounds specified under Section 61(3)

of the "Code", the Learned Sr. Counsel has stated that Successful

Resolution Plan has been challenged on frivolous grounds and is merely

seeking directions to the CoC to consider the proposal of the Appellant and

permission to submit a Resolution Plan at a belated stage more than a

year. Hence the Resolution Plan on the sole ground is not maintainable.

Learned Sr. Counsel has also submitted that there is no provision under

the Code under which a Resolution Plan duly approved by the CoC can be

kept pending or rejected by the Adjudicating Authority on the basis that

another high value plan is likely to be submitted or to be submitted. The

Adjudicating Authority has no authority to challenge the Resolution Plan

on commercial consideration. The relevant rules and acts provides for the

procedure to be followed which starts from initiation of Expression of

Interest to submission of Resolution Plan as provided by the relevant

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1079 of 2020

Page 8 of 19 regulations and suddenly in between some plan/ some proposal cannot be

considered to jeopardize the system of CIRP and once this is permitted no

Resolution Plan will ever be approved by the Adjudicating Authority.

Learned Sr. Counsel has also placed Reliance on Chhatisgarh Disstillersis

Ltd. Vs. Dushyant Dave & Ors. Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 461 of 2019,

wherein this Appellate Tribunal dealt with a similar issue and held that

the Adjudicating Authority "cannot direct the CoC to consider the second

Resolution Plan submitted by the Authority although the second

Resolution Applicant is ready to invest more amount in comparison to first

Resolution Applicant. The Adjudicating Authority has rightly held that the

Adjudicating Authority cannot suo motu direct the CoC to consider new

resolution plan and reconsider already approved Resolution Plan". It was

further held that since the prescribed Authority (NCLT/NCLAT) have been

endured with limited jurisdiction as specified in the Code. "the second

Resolution Applicant A-1 has failed to satisfy that the Appeal is

maintainable on any of the grounds provided in Section 61(3) of the I&B

Code."

A review of the grounds raised by the Appellant would show that in a

desperate attempt to show jurisdiction under Section 61(3) of the Code,

the Appellant is seeking to challenge the Resolution Plan on the grounds

that the Plan does not comply with Section 30(2) of the Code. It is

submitted that the Appellant has no locus to either challenge the

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1079 of 2020

Page 9 of 19 provisions of the Resolution Plan or the implementation of the same. Since

the Appellant is not a stakeholder, it is in no way an aggrieved party in

respect of compliance or non-compliance of the Resolution Plan with

Section 30(2) of the Code. Hence, any challenge to the Resolution Plan on

these grounds cannot be raised by the Appellant. Without prejudice, it is

submitted that the Resolution Plan complies with the provisions of Section

30(2) of the Code.

It is reiterated that the garb of challenging the Resolution Plan and the

process followed by the RP, the Appellant is seeking directions to the CoC

to consider its proposal, which it has no locus to do. Further, the

Adjudicating Authority and the Appellate Authority do not have any

jurisdiction to suo-moto direct the CoC to consider a proposal of another

entity when the Successful Resolution Plan has already been approved by

the CoC and the Adjudicating Authority.

8. The learned counsel for the Respondent No.2 (CoC) has submitted that the

Appellant never participated in CIRP nor submitted any Resolution Plan.

No EOI was submitted by the appellant within the stipulated timelines,

nor does the appellant form part of any prospective resolution applicant

list. Regulation 36A(5) of the CIRP Regulations requires that a prospective

resolution applicant who meets the requirements under the invitation for

EOI may submit its EOI within the time specified in the invite. Further,

Regulation 36A (6) clearly provides that an EOI received after such

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1079 of 2020

Page 10 of 19 time (as stated above) shall be rejected. [Amit Gupta vs. Yogesh Gupta

and Ors. In Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 903 of 2019; para 16; Appeal

against this judgment (CA No.1435 of 2020) dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme

Court vide order dated 20.02.2020) A person who does not participate in

the CIRP cannot claim to be aggrieved of the order passed by Adjudicating

Authority approving the resolution plan, presented by a duly qualified

Resolution Applicant.

The appellant is a rank outsider standing on the sidelines who has

attempted to intervene in the Plan Approval proceedings at a much belated

stage, by filing an applicant on 09.07.2020, and that too, for directions to

the RP and CoC to consider its proposal, albeit without any proposal at all,

for RP to provide access to data room and other information, to enable it

to present a plan at such belated stage. Such intervention cannot be

permitted at the instance of a busybody, as it has a cascading effect on

the resolution of Corporate Debtor, and the very sanctity of the CIRP.

The Appeal filed by the Appellant, as well as the relief sought therein would

amply reveal the mala fide intent with which the appeal has been filed. The

Appeal filed by the Appellant, under the garb of challenging the Plan

Approval Order as being non-compliant with the provisions of Section

30(2), is nothing but an attempt to weasel into the concluded CIRP of the

Corporate Debtor and have some potential proposal considered by the

CoC, thereby derailing the entire CIRP, which , after, much time and

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1079 of 2020

Page 11 of 19 consideration of all parties involved, has culminated in a resolution plan

approved by the CoC in its commercial wisdom as being beneficial for all

stakeholders.

It is submitted that the Resolution Plan submitted by the Respondent No.3

is approved by the CoC in its commercial wisdom, which commercial

wisdom is non-justiciable. The Appellant cannot seek a mandamus for

directing the CoC to revisit its commercial wisdom and consider any plan

by the Appellant, at such belated stage.

The Respondent has submitted that in the present case, the Appellant is

not even an unsuccessful Resolution Applicant, or for that matter, even a

prospective Resolution Applicant. In light of this Appellate Tribunal's

decision in Hindustan Oil Exploration Company Vs. Erstwhile CoC of

JEKPL Pvt. Ltd (Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 969 of 2020, whereby even

an unsuccessful Resolution Applicant was held to have no locus, it is

submitted that the Appellant, can by no stretch of imagination have any

locus to challenge the plan approval order.

Commercial decisions of the CoC cannot be overturned under the garb of

maximization of value.

 This Appellate Tribunal, has time and again given primacy to the

commercial wisdom of the CoC. In Shrawan Kumar Agarwal

Consortium Vs. Rituraj Steel Private Limited, 2020 SCC online

NCLAT 380, held that even for maximization of value of the assets

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1079 of 2020

Page 12 of 19 of the Corporate Debtor, the Adjudicating Authority is not entitled

to overturn the business decisions of the Corporate Debtor.  Chhatisgarh Distilleries Ltd. Vs. Dushyant Dave & Ors., (Company

Appeal (AT) (Ins) No.461 of 2019.

Value maximization of the Corporate Debtor has to be in a time bound

manner and cannot be at the cost of infraction of due process of law.

9. The learned Sr. Counsel representing Respondent No.3 has submitted that

interups does have locus and the Appeal is not maintainable. Interups is not

an aggrieved party in the present case, and therefore cannot maintain an

appeal under section 61 of the Code, which allows only "parties aggrieved by

the order" to appeal against an order. Interups never submitted an EOI, or a

resolution plan during the CIRP to qualify as a prospective resolution

applicant. After the CIRP was concluded. Interups submitted a bald proposal,

which was rightly rejected by the Resolution Professional as grossly delayed.

Interups submitted a speculative proposal seeking to conduct due diligence

on the Corporate Debtor and to formulate a resolution plan, nearly one year

after the CIRP was concluded by approval of the JSW Plan by the CoC and

application being filed by the Resolution Professional before the adjudicating

Authority. Interups neither qualifies as a resolution applicant nor as

prospective resolution applicant.

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1079 of 2020

Page 13 of 19 The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that even a resolution applicant or

prospective resolution applicant has no vested right to challenge the decision

of the CoC and to have its plan approved or considered by the CoC under the

IBC. Further, this Appellate Tribunal has held that any proposals or

expression of interest to submit a resolution plan cannot be entertained after

the CIRP period has expired. This Appellate Tribunal has also held that RP

considering any plan after the deadline, would be illegal and liable to be set

aside. The Respondent No.3 submitted that Interups has no interest or locus

to challenge the impugned order and accordingly the appeal is not

maintainable.

JSW Plan has already been implemented and attained finality.

It is submitted that admission of the appeal or any stay of the impugned order

would prejudicial to JSW and will be against the time bound principle

enshrined in the IBC. JSW Plan has already been implemented. On

27.10.2020, Rs. 1,550 Crore has been paid by JSW; existing shares of the

corporate debtor have been cancelled and new shares have been issued to

JSW; new board of directors have been appointed and JSW has taken over

the management of the Corporate Debtor. Consequent actions pursuant to

the implementation of the JSW plan such as disclosures to the stock

exchange etc. have also been carried out.

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1079 of 2020

Page 14 of 19 If the EOI by Interups is considered after another plan has received CoC

approval, then statutory procedure enshrined in Section 30 of the Code will

have no meaning. Such practice will be detrimental to the public interest

because there will never be finality to resolution process and discouraged

resolution applicants to invest time and money into submitted resolution

plans. The Code provides for time bound resolution of a company and

entertaining and EOI at this stage will make a mockery of the entire scheme

of the Code. The Adjudicating Authority has limited jurisdiction to either

approve the Resolution Plan or reject the Resolution Plan if it is not compliant

with law, no more or no less.

Pendency of avoidance applications does not vitiate the approved JSW Plan.

Interups has contended that CA 613 (PB)/ 2019 titled Mr. Kuldeep Kumar

Bassi Vs. Mr. Pradeep Aggarwal & Ors. (CA 613) which includes time

exclusion had to be decided before the plan approval application.

Interups reliance on Delhi High Court's Judgment dated 26.11.2020 in Venus

Recruiters Private Limited Vs. Union of India & Ors. (W.P No. 8705 of 2019)

("Delhi High Court Judgment") is misplaced, as it has not held that a

resolution plan approved by an Adjudicating Authority will be vitiated / liable

to be set aside if an avoidance application is kept pending while the resolution

plan approval application is decided. Further in para 89 of the Delhi High

Court Judgment it has been held that "the NCLT also has no jurisdiction to

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1079 of 2020

Page 15 of 19 entertain and decide avoidance applications, in respect of a corporate debtor

which is now under a new management unless provision is made in the final

Resolution Plan". IN the present case such a provision has been provided for

in the JSW Plan. The same is reproduced below:

"1.12 (o) Reversal of preferential transactions, undervalued

transactions, extortionate transactions and fraudulent trading:

... The reversal of these transactions by the NCLT upon submission

of the resolution plan to the NCLT for its approval, will be to the

benefit of the Company and the Company will not be required to

transfer any such amounts/assets to the creditors. Any claim from

any counter party of the aforesaid transactions (in further) arising

due to reversal of such transactions shall stand extinguished.

The Resolution Professional shall conduct and pursue the litigation for

reversal of such transactions till their final disposal (including any

appeals). The costs of such litigation for the Resolution Professional

shall be borne by the Resolution Professional.

The decision on CA 613/2019 is not a pre-requisite for approval of resolution

plan. Therefore, the Delhi High Court Judgment is inapplicable to the present

case.

V. CIRP has come to an end.

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1079 of 2020

Page 16 of 19 The Adjudicating Authority in paragraph 198, has held that the Khapoli Land

issue in CA 613/2019 will be heard with other avoidance applications.

However, the prayer for extension of time is separate from the prayer

regarding Khapoli Land issue, and the issue does not survive once the CIRP

has been concluded with passing of the resolution plan and approval of the

same by the Adjudicating Authority and COC.

The interim order of the Adjudicating Authority whereby CIRP was permitted to be continued beyond 16.04.2019, has merged with the final order i.e. impugned order and the CIRP has concluded as per the doctrine of merger of interim order with the final order.

Accordingly, the Appeal should be dismissed at the threshold.

10 We have carefully perused the submission made by the learned Sr. Counsel

for the Appellant and the Respondents. As observed by this Appellate

Tribunal on 17.12.2020 to initially consider the issue of maintainability of

appeal and locus standi of Appellant to question the approval of Resolution

Plan of Successful Resolution Applicant, we are first taking up this issue

after hearing the learned Sr. counsels for the Appellant and learned Sr.

Counsel for Respondent No.1 (Resolution Professional) & Respondent No. 3

(Successful Resolution Applicant) and learned counsel for the CoC on

11.02.2021 and the Written submission made by the parties.

Section 61(1) authorizes "any person aggrieved by the order of Adjudicating

Authority under this part" can prefer an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal.

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1079 of 2020

Page 17 of 19 The 'part' here refers to Part -II of the Code which comprises CIRP and

Liquidation Process. Here what we observed that "any person aggrieved"

comprises of stakeholders in the process of CIRP and Liquidation Process.

The Appellant is stranger to the CIRP till 11th June, 2020. On 12.06.2020

the Appellant for the first time expressed its interest to submit a Resolution

Plan for the Asian Colours Coated Ispat Ltd, this email was marked to all

CoC members (Annexure A-11 @pg. 209 Vol2). No financial proposal was

provided in the said letter.

RP issued Form G initially on 01.10.2018, revised on 14th December 2018.

EoI was received from 12 Resolution Applicants, out of which 11 were found

eligible. Last date for receipt of Resolution plan was 08th March 2019. Only

one resolution plan was received from successful Resolution Applicant,

whereas Appellant has asked for EOI on 12th June 2020 when application

seeking approval of Resolution Plan was already filed by RP on 10th July,

2019 under section 31 of Code after 'Committee of Creditors' (CoC) Approval

on 28th June 2019 with 79.3% voting share. All this reflect that Appellant

wanted to enter fray nearly one year after CoC approval of Resolution Plan;

it neither qualifies as Resolution Applicant nor as prospective Resolution

Applicant or successful or unsuccessful Resolution Applicant and hence

cannot be termed as aggrieved party. Appellant may be termed as an outsider

standing on the sidelines. Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process is time

bound, value maximization has also to be in timebound manner. All this lead

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1079 of 2020

Page 18 of 19 us to sum up that Appellant is neither an aggrieved party in the process of

CIRP nor he has a locus standi to file the appeal.

Hence, Appeal is held to be not maintainable and Appellant has no locus to

maintain it. The Appeal is accordingly dismissed.

Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.

No order as to costs.

[Justice Bansi Lal Bhat] Acting Chairperson

[Dr. Ashok Kumar Mishra] Member (Technical)

[Dr. Alok Srivastava] Member (Technical)

Date of Order 15th March, 2021 RK

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1079 of 2020

Page 19 of 19