Vivek Mahendru And Anr vs Ritu Rastogi And Ors
- CitationComp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 2312 of 2024
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The ratio must rest on the reasoning actually present in the order. The order dismisses the appeal because the Appellant lacks locus standi to maintain I.A. No. 434 of 2023, an application seeking setting aside of the CoC's approval of a resolution plan and reconsideration by the CoC. The locus finding rests on a prior decision of this Tribunal (IMR Metallurgical Resources AG v. Ferro Alloys Corporation Limited), which the order cites but does not itself set out, so its content cannot be extracted here. The order also reasons from the fact that the CoC's own application (I.A. No. 26 of 2024) on the same remit question was dismissed, and that the CoC has not appealed that dismissal. The order does not state an independent principle beyond these points. An applicant who is an unsuccessful resolution applicant and an ex-director of the corporate debtor, whose plan was rejected by the CoC in its commercial wisdom, does not have locus standi to seek setting aside of the CoC's approval of another resolution plan and an order directing reconsideration, where the question of the CoC's power to remit the plan has already been decided against the CoC in separate proceedings and that decision stands unappealed.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 2312 of 2024 & I.A. No. 8686, 8687, 8688 of 2024 IN THE MATTER OF:
Vivek Mahendru & Anr. ...Appellant
Versus
Ritu Rastogi & Ors. ...Respondents
Present: For Appellant: Mr. Anand Chibbar, Sr. Adv. For Respondents: Mr. Siddharth Sangal, Chirag Sharma, Richa Mishra, Harshita Agrawal, Adv. for R2 Mr. Aalok Jagga, A. Madaan, Yogesh Mittal, Adv. for R3
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode) Per: Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain: (Oral)
13.12.2024: This appeal is directed against the order dated 19.11.2024
by which an application filed by the Appellant bearing I.A No. 434 of 2023
with a prayer "setting aside the decision of the CoC's approval of the resolution
plan submitted by Respondent No. 3 and direct the CoC to reconsider the
resolution plan as already submitted through a challenge mechanism and/or
further invite additional resolution plans, which are compliant,
implementable, and commercially viable for maximisation of value" has been
dismissed inter alia on the ground that the Appellant does not have any right
to maintain the application as it has no locus standi.
2. The finding recorded in this regard is based upon a decision of this
Court in the case IMR Metallurgical Resources AG Vs. Ferro Alloys
Corporation Limited & Ors., CA (AT) (Ins) No. 272 of 2020.
3. The Tribunal has noticed that the Appellant is the unsuccessful
resolution applicant and are the ex-directors of the CD who had also put up
their plan in the 16th CoC meeting but the CoC in its commercial wisdom rejected their plan by 100% voting share of CoC as the plan amount offered
was only Rs. 18 Cr.
4. Ld. Counsel or the Appellant has argued that it would be in the interest
of justice if the plan is rejected and the matter is remanded back to the CoC
to publish fresh form G but at the same time it cannot be lost site of the fact
that the CoC had also filed its own application bearing I.A. No. 26 of 2024 in
which the Tribunal has noted that the first moot question was as to whether
the CoC can request to remit back the resolution plan pending before the AA
for approval and the said application has also been dismissed.
5. It is also pertinent to mention that the CoC has also not filed its appeal
yet being aggrieved against the order passed in I.A. No. 26 of 2024.
6. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, especially that the
Appellant do not have any locus standi to maintain the application bearing
I.A No. 434 of 2023. We do not find any error in the impugned order for the
purpose of interference in this appeal and hence, the same is hereby
dismissed. No costs.
[Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain] Member (Judicial)
[Mr. Naresh Salecha] Member (Technical)
[Mr. Indevar Pandey] Member (Technical)
Sheetal/Ravi
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