AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Per Justice N. Seshasayee, Member (Judicial)
This appeal is preferred by the suspended director of the corporate debtor who challenges an Order passed in I.A. No.511 of 2025 through which it raised certain objections to the approval of the plan which is pending consideration of the Adjudicating Authority in I.A. No.1 of 2025 which the RP has filed. The Order in that I.A. No.1 of 2025 is stated to have been reserved by the Adjudicating Authority.
Before the Adjudicating Authority, the appellant herein has raised three facts of objections:
that plan does not take into consideration the CIRP cost;
that the CD is a subsidiary of a certain holding company and the holding company itself is now under CIRP. That the RP of the holding company has raised certain bill to the RP of the subsidiary company and this is not considered; and
that the trademark of the holding company has been given free of cost to the SRA of the subsidiary company.
The learned Adjudicating Authority vide the Order now impugned before us has dismissed the application principally on the ground that the appellant does not have any locus standi to raise the contention which he has raised. We do not find any infirmity in the approach of the learned Adjudicating Authority. If CIRP cost which comprises chiefly the remuneration to the RP and such are the cost which the RP may have incurred for keeping the CD as a going concern, they will definitely fall under the scrutiny of the Adjudicating Authority. At any rate, the remuneration component is something the RP should worry about and not the suspended director. Secondly, so far as the bill which the RP of the holding company has raised against the RP of the subsidiary company which is the corporate debtor in the present case is concerned, again stricto sensu if that bill is to be accommodated that only lead to depletion of the asset value of the corporate debtor. This is an aspect which has to be considered in the CIRP proceedings of the holding company and not of the subsidiary company. Turing to the last i.e. the trademark of the holding company given to the SRA of the CD is concerned, this again is an issue which will be relevant to the CIRP proceedings of the holding company and not of the subsidiary.
It is in these circumstances, as indicated, we find it difficult to persuade ourselves that the appellant has an arguable case in the matter.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No cost.
I.A. No.2354 of 2026 is also closed.