AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
ORDER
The instant Appeal has been preferred being aggrieved against the Impugned Order of NCLT, Chennai, as rendered in IA No. 1380 / 2024 in IA (IBC) / 5 / 2024 in CP (IB) / 706 (CHE) / 2019 dated 06.06.2024.
Brief facts of the case are;
The Appellants claim to be an absolute owner of 2.95 Acres of land situated in Semancheri Village, Tambaram Taluk.
They are said to have entered into a Joint Venture Agreement with the Corporate Debtor / Respondent No. 1 on 17.01.2004. The project could not be completed for various unavoidable reasons and in 2018, they terminated the Joint Venture Agreement.
Arbitration was initiated vide O.P. No. 145 / 2021, to arbitrate the dispute between the parties and it is still going on.
Simultaneously, CIRP was initiated against the Corporate Debtor by the Financial Creditor of Corporate Debtor on 01.07.2022.
The Appellants are said to have submitted their claim before the IRP on 25.07.2022, which was rejected by IRP on 26.07.2022. The Appellants filed an IA No. 729 / 2023, before NCLT for including their claim and then IA No. 900 / 2023 against rejection of the claim.
NCLT by a Common Order dated 12.12.2023, had dismissed both the IAs against which they have filed Appeals before this Tribunal i.e. Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (INS) No. 47 / 2024 and Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (INS) No. 58 / 2024, which is presently pending consideration.
The Appellants further had filed an IA No. 1380 / 2024 for impleadment / intervention, in IA / IBC (Plan) 5 / 2024 in which Resolution Plan of Corporate Debtor is being considered.
NCLT rejected the above IA No. 1380 / 2024, the Impleadment Application on 06.06.2024 stating that, the Applicants are not entitled to get the copy of the Plan and therefore, they cannot be impleaded in the proceedings of IA / IBC (Plan) 5 / 2024, taking into account the statement of Resolution Professional, that the interest of Applicant in his acclaimed status as land owner, as well as party to the JDA has been duly considered in the Plan.
Against this order of denial to supply the copy of Resolution Plan, the instant Company Appeal has been filed.
In fact, what has been contended by the Appellant in his arguments, is that his rights are being affected, in relation to the property, over which he contends to claim that he owns an interest and as a consequence thereto, he would be legally entitled to get a copy of the Resolution Plan and consequentially he will also get a right to be impleaded in the pending Company Petition. But, these prayers as contained in IA No. 1380 / 2024 have been rejected by the impugned order as rendered by the National Company Law Tribunal, Division Bench – 2, Chennai.
The argument as extended by the learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant as against the impugned order under challenge, can be answered in the manner that so far as the IA No. 1380 / 2024 in IA / IBC (Plan) 5 / 2024 in CP (IB) / 706(CHE)/2019 is concerned, where the Appellant has sought to get a copy of the Resolution Plan, the same has been rejected on the ground, that since he is not being a party to the CIRP proceedings at any stage, he would not be legally entitled to get the copy of the Resolution Plan and also to get himself impleaded in the said proceedings.
The learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant argues that the subject property over which he contends has an interest, for all justification which he carries had been based upon, the basis of preference of claim before the Liquidator.
But the application of claim as submitted by the present Appellant, since has been rejected, which is consequentially presently pending consideration in Company Appeal (AT) (INS) Nos. 47 & 58 / 2024.
Presently, what we are concerned within the instant Appeal, where the challenge is given by the Appellant is to the impugned order of 06.06.2024 where IA No. 1380 / 2024 and IA / IBC (Plan) 5 / 2024 has been rejected.
As far as this part of the Order is concerned, we are in agreement with the reason assigned by the learned Adjudicating Authority denying to supply the copy of the Resolution Plan, since it is an admitted fact that the Appellant is not a party to the CIRP process and nothing sustainable material has been placed on record or argued by the Appellants Counsel against this. Hence, we too see no logic, otherwise also, that a person who is not a party to the proceedings who is yet to be determined to have material right affected would at all be entitled for being provided with the copy of the Resolution Plan.
But having said so, we cannot be oblivious of the fact at this stage that, as against the rejection of the Claim of the Appellant, two Appeals have been preferred by the Appellant, being Company Appeals under Section 61 of the I & B Code, 2016, which is informed to be already pending consideration before this Appellate Tribunal.
At the stage, when the pending Company Appeals of the Appellant against rejection of their claim itself are taken up for consideration to be considered on merits, the Appellants, in case, if the Resolution Plan has any bearing on these Appeals, can file an appropriate Application in the pending Appeals, for getting a copy of the Resolution Plan, if at all, entitled to the same under law, once the rejection of the claim is held to be bad in the eyes of law, and if the same is done, it will be considered by this Appellate Tribunal, in accordance with law.
However, so far as the instant Company Appeal is concerned, where the relief sought by the Appellants in the IA No. 1380 / 2024, has been decided by the learned Adjudicating Authority by the impugned judgment, it is not a case which could call for any interference in an Appeal under Section 61 of the I & B Code, 2016, except for the exceptions which has been carved out for the Appellant by this Judgment to file an appropriate Application in the pending Appeal for procuring the copy of the Resolution Plan, which obviously would be considered to be provided to the Appellant, by this Appellate Tribunal, subject to adherence of the principle of law, and considering the fact and impact too, that the Appellant is not a party in the proceedings before the learned Adjudicating Authority.
Subject to the above, the Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (INS) No. 275 / 2024, would stand closed.