Rupinder Singh Gill vs Three C Universal Developers Private ...

Rupinder Singh Gill Appellant Vs. Three C Universal Developers Pvt. Ltd. ....Respondent Through RP, Rakesh Kumar Gupta Present: For Appellant:- Mr. Krishnendu Datta, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Prachi Johri and Lakshya Sachdeva, Advocates For Respondent:- Mr. Abhishek Anand and Mr. Kunal Godhwani, Advocates for RP.

ORDER

(Virtual Mode)

07.10.2021: Heard Ld. Counsels for the parties on I.A No. 1932 of 2021

an Application for seeking stay the operation of the impugned order dated

01.09.2021 and for direction to the Adjudicating Authority not to conclude

hearing in I.A. No. 655 of 2021 in CP (IB) No. 2582/ND/2019 i.e. the

Application for approval of Resolution Plan.

2. Brief facts of this case is that the CIRP initiated against the Respondent

No. 1 (Corporate Debtor) in December, 2019. The Appellant has filed an

Application IVNP-05 of 2021 in CP (IB) No. 2582/ND/2019 with the prayer

that the Applicant (Appellant herein) may be allowed to intervene in an

Application pending for approval of Resolution Plan and also direct the

Resolution Professional (RP) to supply a copy of Resolution Plan to the

Applicant (Appellant herein). Ld. Adjudicating Authority by the impugned

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 729 of 2021 2

order dated 01.09.2021 dismissed the Application, operative portion of the

same is as under:-

"Heard, Ld. Counsel appearing for the Applicant and perused the averments made in the Application. Ld. Counsel appearing for the Applicant admitted this fact that the Applicant has not submitted any claim before the RP. She further submitted that there is a litigation between the Applicant and the Suspended Board of Directors of the Corporate Debtor and that is the reason, she needs a copy of the Resolution Plan for the perusal. She further submitted if required, the Applicant will file the objections. Considering the fact that the applicant has not submitted any claim before RP, we are of the considered view that the Applicant has no locus standi. Simply on the ground that there is litigation between the Applicant and Suspended Board of Directors of the Corporate Debtor, we are not inclined to permit the applicant to intervene and direct the RP to serve a copy of the Resolution Plan. Accordingly, we hereby reject the prayer of the Applicant.

Hence, the present IA stands Dismissed."

3. Against the impugned order the Appellant has filed this Appeal and in

this Appeal the Appellant is seeking interim protection as stated above.

4. Ld. Sr. Counsel for the Appellant submits that the Appellant agreed to

purchase entire shareholding of the Corporate Debtor Company and paid Rs.

61,87,500 as part payment and agreed to pay balance amount as per the

terms of agreement to sale dated 08.10.2018. On the basis of this agreement

the Appellant become the owner of the Corporate Debtor Company. Therefore,

the Appellant has filed an Application seeking intervention in the Application

pending before the Adjudicating Authority for approval of Resolution Plan. The

Appellant has a prima facie case he is a stakeholder and is in material

litigation with the Corporate Debtor related to the agreement to sale dated

08.10.2018. The balance of convenience is in favour of the Appellant and no

harms shall be caused to the RP, if he furnishes the copy of Resolution Plan

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 729 of 2021 3

to the Appellant. So, the Appellant may examine the Resolution Plan and if

necessary he may file objection before the Adjudicating Authority.

5. It is submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Vijay Kr.

Jain VS. Standard Chartered Bank 2019 SCC Online SC 103" in Para 12 held

that the Operational Creditors and Board of Directors despite having no voting

rights were considered entitle to get copy of Resolution Plan.

6. Ld. Sr. Counsel for the Appellant also submits that the Appellant's

rights should have been protected under the agreement, such right cannot be

extinguished by the approval of Resolution Plan. For this purpose, he placed

reliance on the Judgment of this Appellate Tribunal in the case of "K L Jute

Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Tirupati Jute Industries Ltd. & Ors CA (AT) (Ins) No.

277 of 2019".

7. Lastly Ld. Sr. Counsel for the Appellant submits that the Appellant is a

stakeholder and without affording a reasonable opportunity, if the Resolution

Plan is approved, it will affect the vital rights of the Appellant. Therefore,

during pendency of this Appeal the Adjudicating Authority may be directed

not to approve the Resolution Plan.

8. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent

(RP) supports the impugned order and submits that the Appellant has no

locus to file this Appeal. It is further submitted that the Appellant is not an

ex-director or promoter or a financial creditor nor a stakeholder of the

Corporate Debtor. Admittedly, the Appellant has not filed any claim before the

RP.

9. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent (RP) further submits that in Vijay Kr.

Jain's case Hon'ble Supreme court held that only the participants of the CoC

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 729 of 2021 4

are entitled to get copy of the Resolution Plan because they are vitally

interested in the outcome of the CIRP. The term participant is defined in

Regulation 2(l) of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency

Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 which provides

that participants means a person entitled to attend a meeting of the committee

under Section 24 or any other person authorized by the committee to attend

the meeting. The Appellant does not come within the definition of participants

of CoC. Therefore, he is not entitled to get copy of the Resolution Plan. Thus,

the Appellant has no prima facie case, in case, the Adjudicating Authority is

directed not to proceed for deciding the Application for approval of Resolution

Plan, it will against the objective of the IBC which provides that the CIRP

should be concluded in time bound. Therefore, the Application is liable to be

dismissed.

10. After hearing Ld. Counsels for the parties, we have carefully examined

the record without expressing any opinion on the merits. We are of the view

that the Appellant has failed to make out a case for staying the further

proceedings pending before the Adjudicating Authority. Thus, the I.A. No.

1932 of 2021 is hereby dismissed with no costs.

Let the Appeal be fixed 'For Hearing' on 01st December, 2021.

[Justice Jarat Kumar Jain] Member (Judicial)

[Mr. V. P. Singh] Member (Technical) Sc/gc/

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 729 of 2021