AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
O R D E R
03.08.2022: Heard Learned Sr. Counsel for the Appellant-Mr. Gopal Jain and Learned Sr. Counsel-Mr. Ramji Srinivasan along with Mr. Abhijeet Sinha, Advocate appearing for the Respondents.
This Appeal has been filed against the Order dated 09th May, 2022 and 10th June, 2022 by which Order the I.A. No. 406 of 2022 and I.A. No. 491 of 2022 filed by the Appellant have been rejected. The Appellant is unsuccessful Resolution Applicant who had filed an I.A. No. 406 of 2022 to set aside the Communication dated 31st March, 2021 and 24th June, 2021 issued by the Resolution Professional rejecting his prayer to allow him to submit a Revised Resolution Plan. The Application i.e. I.A. No. 406 of 2022 was taken on 09th May, 2022 on which date unfortunately the Applicant could not appear and the Order was passed rejecting the Application. Subsequently the Appellant filed another I.A. No. 491 of 2022 seeking revival of I.A. No. 406 of 2022 which has been rejected by the Order dated 10th June, 2022 holding that “we do not find any merit or locus of present applicant”. Assailing these two Orders, this Appeal has been filed.
Mr. Gopal Jain, Sr. Advocate submits that Applicant has raised substantial grounds in his Application to assail the approval of the plan of the Successful Resolution Applicant including the Member of Committee of Creditors was related party. He submits that the request of the Appellant to revive the Application was subsequently rejected on the ground of no locus and no merit.
Mr. Ramji Srinivasan, Sr. Advocate appearing for the Respondent submits that the Resolution Plan was approved by the Committee of Creditors as early as on 31st March, 2021 and Appellant was well aware of the said approval since he has sent a letter/objection dated 15th June, 2021 to the Resolution Professional which was replied also on 24th June, 2021 and he filed the Application with substantial delay on 30th March, 2022. Mr. Ramji Srinivasan further submits that Appellant has withdrawn his EMD as well as Bank Guarantees.
We have considered the submissions of the parties and perused the record.
From the facts brought on record, it does appear that Application was filed by the Appellant i.e. I.A. No. 406 of 2022 in March, 2022 however the said Application was firstly rejected in his absence and secondly on an request to revive the Application the same was dismissed on the ground of no locus and holding that there is no merit. No reasons have been given in the Order impugned as to how the Appellant has no locus.
Learned Counsel for the parties have submitted that Application for approval of the Resolution Plan is coming before the Adjudicating Authority on tomorrow i.e. 04th August, 2022. We are of the view that when the Application for approval of the Resolution Plan is under consideration before the Adjudicating Authority this Appeal need not be entertained. End of Justice be served giving liberty to the Appellant to raise his objections regarding the approval of the Resolution Plan which may be heard by the Adjudicating Authority while considering the Application for approval of the Resolution Plan in accordance with law. We make it clear that we are not expressing any opinion on the merits of the Appeal. We further observe that the Application I.A. No. 406 of 2022 is not being revived, however liberty is granted to the Appellant to file objection to the plan approved by the Committee of Creditors by tomorrow before the Adjudicating Authority.
With these observations, we dispose of the Appeal.