Prince Jain vs Alok Kumar Kuchhal

It is submitted by the respondent that applicant doesn’t have any locus standi in the I.A No. 193 of 2022. Applicant made investment in the corporate debtor during the pending adjudication of initiation of CIRP proceedings against the corporate debtor. Applicant never raised any issue before filing an I.A No.177 of 2022 with regard to CIRP or liquidation Process. This shows that the applicant is in collusion with erstwhile management of the corporate debtor.

It is also submitted that applicant purchased 32% shares of the corporate debtor few days before the commencement of CIRP of the Corporate Debtor. It is significant to note that the Applicant initially submitted their claim during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) period of the Corporate Debtor. At that time, the Resolution Professional, who is also referred to as the Respondent or Liquidator in this context, placed the Applicant's claim on hold. This decision was based on the fact that the shares in question had not been transferred, preventing the Applicant from being recognized as a member of the Corporate Debtor.

The Resolution Professional found the transactions in question highly suspicious and chose not to admit the Applicant's claim. This decision was explicitly documented in the minutes of the 6^th Committee of Creditors (COC) meeting. However, it's worth noting that the Applicant, with possible collusive intent, managed to resolve these suspicious transactions with certain COC members. Consequently, the COC decided not to take further action against the Applicant. As a result of the COC's decision, the RP was bound by their choice and had to include the Applicant and their related parties in the list of claimants. Importantly, due to this development, the Liquidator did not pursue a formal application regarding the Applicant's suspicious transactions.

Eventually, it is submitted by the liquidator /respondent that applicant cannot be impleaded as an necessary party in I.A No. 193 of 2022, contending that ……………The Applicant is not considered as a necessary party in the application filed by the Liquidator for seeking directions from this Hon'ble Tribunal as the said issue of impleadment has been decided by the Hon'ble NCLAT bench in a catena of cases, the very recent is in the matter of Mr. Chinna Rao vs. Venkatasivakumar Erstwhile Liquidator of M/s The Jeypore Sugar Co. Ltd. [I.A. Nos. 584 & 585 of 2022 in Comp. App (AT) (CH) (INS) No. 269 of 2022] wherein the Hon'ble NCLAT Chennai Bench had vide order dated 12.08.2022 held that it must be borne in mind that there is no provision in the Code, 2016, that enables the Creditors other than those who triggered the Insolvency Resolution Process, to be impleaded as Parties. In law, the Impleadment of Parties, is ultimately, within the ambit of exercise of discretion by a Tribunal/Authority, as the case may be. More importantly, no person, can be added, unless he is a necessary party. A necessary party means that a person is very much necessary to the Constitution of Suit/an Appeal in a given Proceeding before a Court of Law/Tribunal/Authority. In fact, whether a person has an enforceable legal right is to be looked into by a Tribunal in regard to the impleadment of parties. To array a person as a prospective / proposed Respondent(s) is not a Substantive Right, but undoubtedly, it is one of the procedures and the Tribunal is to exercise its judicial discretion, of course, in a subjective manner, diligently. [Copy of order dated 12.08.2022 passed by the Hon'ble NCLAT Chennai bench in the matter Mr. Chinna Rao vs. V. Venkatasivakumar Erstwhile Liquidator of M/s. The Jeypore Sugar Co. Ltd. is annexed herewith and marked as Anneure-3.]