Mr. Amit Sangal Proprietor Of M/S. Nitin ... vs Mr. Kairav Anil Trivedi Irp/Rp Of M/S. ...

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNALPRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 188 of 2024 IN THE MATTER OF: Amit Sangal Proprietor of Nitin Plastic ...Appellant Versus Kairav Anil Trivedi IRP of Prince MFG Industries ...Respondent Pvt. Ltd. Present: For Appellants : Mr. Anuj Kr. Solanki, Adv. For Respondent : Mr. Kairav Trivedi, RP ORDER

05.03.2024: This appeal is directed against the order dated

08.12.2023 by which an application filed by the Appellant bearing I.A No.

4329 of 2023 has been dismissed on the ground that the Appellant has filed

this application to review the order passed in I.A. No. 4039 of 2023 which

was disposed of on 07.09.2023.

2. Brief facts of this case are that the Operational Creditor filed an

application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016

(in short 'Code') against the Corporate Debtor. The said application was

admitted on 05.10.2021 and Kairav Anil Trivedi was appointed as Interim

Resolution Professional (in short 'IRP').

3. The IRP filed I.A. No. 2977 of 2022 for the approval of the resolution

plan which was allowed on 15.05.2023. The Appellant has challenged the

order dated 15.05.2023 by way of an appeal bearing CA (AT) (Ins) No. 792 of

2023 which is pending before this Court. It is alleged by the Appellant that

during the pendency of the appeal, the resolution plan has been

implemented on 30.06.2023.

4. The Appellant is the Proprietor of the Operational Creditor, filed I.A

No. 4039 of 2023 seeking direction to the Registry to provide certified copy

of the resolution plan and the copy of I.A. No. 2977 of 2022 alongwith all

documents. This application was dismissed on 07.09.2023 holding that "It is

well settled that an appeal is nothing but a continuation of the proceedings.

Therefore, strictly speaking, the approval of the resolution plan is still

subjudice. Accordingly, in our considered view, the Applicant cannot be held

entitled to be supplied a copy of the plan. More so, since the RP or the

Monitoring Committee have not been impleaded, no order with regard to

supplying the copy of the plan and other document can be passed at their

back." The order dated 07.09.2023 was not challenged by the Appellant by

way of an appeal. However, the Appellant filed another application I.A. No.

4329 of 2023 on 25.09.2023 after impleading RP as a party and made the

same prayer to provide the certified copy of the resolution plan and all

documents. The said application has now been dismissed by the impugned

order on the ground that "the present application is form of the review of the

order which has already been disposed of in I.A No. 4039 of 2023 on

07.09.2023 and the review is not maintainable in view of the decision of the

Hon'ble NCLAT in Union Bank of India (erstwhile Corporation Bank) Vs.

Dinkar T. Venkatasubramanian&Ors." Aggrieved against the order, the

present appeal has been filed.

5. Counsel for the Appellant has submitted that the appeal against the

order dated 15.05.2023 for approval of the resolution plan is pending before

this Court and in the impugned order liberty has been given to the Appellant

to seek suitable reliefs including for making available a copy of the

resolution plan to effectively satisfy the appellate court. Counsel for the

Appellant has submitted that the Appellant is entitled to the copy of the resolution plan in terms of the decision of this Appellate Tribunal rendered

in the case of Association of Aggrieved Workmen of Jet Airways (India)

Limited Vs. Jet Airways (India) Ltd. &Ors. (Manu/NL/0069/2022).

6. We have heard Counsel for the Appellant and perused the record with

their able assistance.

7. The issue involved in this case travel in a narrow compass because

the Application filed by the Appellant has been dismissed by the

Adjudicating Authority only on the ground that the Appellant cannot seek

the same relief which has already been declined on 07.09.2023 while

disposing of the application i.e. I.A. No. 4039 of 2023 and the present

application i.e. I.A. No. 4329 of 2023 has been filed in the garb of a review.

Counsel for the Appellant, during the course of hearing, has candidly

admitted that review is not maintainable because it is not provided in the

Code as the power of review is the creation of statute and cannot be inferred

through inherent powers.

8. Thus, we do not find any error in the impugned order by which the

application i.e. I.A. No. 4329 of 2023 filed by the Appellant has been

dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No costs.

[Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain] Member (Judicial)

[Mr. Indevar Pandey] Member (Technical) Sheetal/Ravi