AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This appeal has been filed against the order dated 13.10.2022 by which IA No. 90 of 2022 in IA No. 300/2019 filed by the ‘Resolution Professional’ (RP) for rectification of the order dated 17.09.2021 has been rejected.
Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that in the order which was passed by the Adjudicating Authority, it was inadvertent mistake that in place of RP, ‘Resolution Applicant’ (RA) has been mentioned.
It is further submitted that a ‘Stakeholders Consideration Meeting’ on 21.10.2020 has resolved that Chairman of the Monitoring Committee shall pursue the Interlocutory Application.
We have considered the submission of the Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The Resolution Plan which is on record does not contain any provision as to who shall pursue the Interlocutory Application u/s 66 of the IBC. In order dated 17.09.2021, the Adjudicating Authority has observed the application shall be pursued by the RA. The application for rectification was filed by RP.
We see no reason to take any different view as has been taken by the Adjudicating Authority in its order dated 13.10.2022. When the RA has been permitted to pursue the application, no infirmity can be found and we are of the view that RP does not have any right to claim that it is only RP who shall pursue the application filed u/s 66 of the IBC.
It is further submitted by the Respondent that Resolution Plan has already been implemented.
We are, thus, of the of view that no useful purpose shall be served in keeping this appeal pending. The Appeal is dismissed.