The U.P. Glass Manufacturers Syndicate vs Girish Sriram Juneja & Ors.

Heard learned counsel for the Appellant as well as Shri Krishnendu Datta, learned senior counsel appearing for Respondent No.1 – Resolution Professional, Mr. Abhinav Vashisht, learned senior counsel appearing for Respondent No.2 – Committee of Creditor and learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.4 – Successful Resolution Applicant. In view of the facts of the present case we see no need to issue any further notice to Respondent No. 3 and 5.

This Appeal has been filed against the order dated 16.01.2023 by which order the Adjudicating Authority has rejected the Intervention Application I.A. No. 19/KB/2022 filed by the Appellant - U.P. Glass Manufacturers Syndicate in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process of Hindusthan National Glass & Industries Ltd. Resolution Plan has been approved by the CoC and application for approval of the plan was filed by the Resolution Professional for consideration before the Adjudicating Authority. Intervention Application was filed by the Appellant claiming that approval under Section 31(4) proviso of the I&B Code has not yet been obtained from Competition Commission of India, hence, the plan cannot be approved. The Adjudicating Authority relying on three member bench judgment of this Appellate Tribunal in “Arcelormittal India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Abhijit Guhathakurta, in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 524 of 2019” and another three member bench judgment in “Makalu Trading Ltd. and Ors. vs. Rajiv Chakraborty and Ors., in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 533 of 2020” has taken the view that it is not mandatory to obtain the approval by the Competition Commission of India prior to approval by CoC and the same can be obtained during pendency of the application for approval pending before the Adjudicating Authority. The Adjudicating Authority rejected the Intervention Application filed by the Appellant holding that Appellant has no locus relying on its earlier order passed on 22.09.2022.

Learned counsel for the Respondent No.1 and 2 submits that the issue as to whether the approval under Section 31(4) proviso is necessary/mandatory or not has already been heard by the Adjudicating Authority in Intervention Application of other stakeholder and order has been reserved on 09.02.2023. Respondent No.4 also adopted the submissions of Respondent No.1.

In view of the aforesaid, we see no reason to enter into the issue as the said issue has already been reserved for consideration before the Adjudicating Authority.

Coming to the issue of locus, we are of the view that at this stage it is not necessary to enter into said issue and give any finding with regard to locus since the issues raised by the Appellant have already been heard and order reserved by the Adjudicating Authority.

In view of the aforesaid, we see no reason to entertain the Appeal at this stage. With these observations, the Appeal is disposed of.