Thangky Islary vs Suspended Board Of Directors Of Rsh Agro ...

Thangky Islary ...Appellant

Versus

Suspended Board of Directors of RSH Agro Products Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents

Present: For Appellant: Mr. Partho Sarkar and Mr. Pratik Sarkar, Advocates. For Respondents:

ORDER

(Virtual Mode)

12.05.2022: Heard learned counsel for the Appellant. This Appeal has

been filed against the order dated 04.03.2022 by which I.A. filed by the

Appellant being I.A. No. 15/GB/2022 has been dismissed. The I.A. was filed

by the Appellant where following prayers have been made:

"a) This Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to give its finding/s as to acts of any omission/ commission for rendering Respondent 4 as NPA.

b) Constituent of Respondent 1, officials of Respondent 2 & Respondent 8 be cross-

examined in exercise of powers U/rule 39 of NCLT rules for any acts of omission & commission rendering Respondent 4 as NPA & or suppressing/ misstating any material facts qua the application U/s 10 of IBC. And consequent initiating of proceedings U/s 424(4)

Cont'd.../ 2

& Sec 425 of the Companies Act and Sec 340 of CrPC AND Sec 409 of IPC R/w Sec 236 of IBC.

c) Directions to constituents of CoC/ Respondent 2 to release the sanctioned funds and to render such other financial assistance in consonance of the objectives of the Code reiterated infra:

To increase the availability of credit and to balance all stakeholder's interest, interalia the instant applicant.

d) Directions to Respondent 3 & Respondent 8 to produce all documents/ evidences qua the issues raised in the instant IA.

e) Appropriate reliefs in terms of prayer clause/s 'A to D' and such other direction given the factual matrix/ circumstances of the present matter."

2. The Adjudicating Authority rejected the application holding that the

Applicant has no locus standi in the matter to file an I.A.

3. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the land belonging to

the Corporate Debtor in fact belongs to tribal and it cannot be transferred to

the Corporate Debtor by virtue of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation,

1886.

4. In the application which has been filed, it is not the case of the Appellant

that the land belong to the Appellant/Applicant. In IBC proceedings if any

claimants have any claim or any other right, it is always open for the aggrieved

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 408 of 2022 3

claimant to file a claim or application before the Adjudicating Authority for

establishing his rights with regard to assets of the Corporate Debtor.

5. In facts of the present case, we are of the view that the Applicant had no

locus before the Adjudicating Authority and the Adjudicating Authority did not

commit any error in rejecting the application, the Applicant having no locus.

With these observations, we dismiss this Appeal.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Shreesha Merla] Member (Technical) Archana/nn

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 408 of 2022