Ganga Construction (Consortium) Vs Anil Kumar Mittal (NCLAT Delhi)
NCLAT Delhi held that appeal of Unsuccessful Resolution Applicant not entertained since after submitting preliminary Resolution Plan, applicant, did not submit final Resolution Plan and even did not participated in the Challenge Mechanism. Accordingly, appeal dismissed.
Facts- This appeal by an Unsuccessful Resolution Applicant has been filed challenging the order dated 07.01.2025 filed by the Appellant questioning the Letter of Intent issued in favour of Respondent No.6 – Manglam Multiplex Private Ltd. whose Resolution Plan was approved in the CIRP of the Corporate Debtor. Applicant also sought declaration that Respondent No.6 is ineligible under Section 29A of the I&B Code. The application filed by the Appellant was considered and rejected by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Division Bench, Court No. II, Kolkata by the impugned order. Aggrieved by which order this appeal has been filed.
Conclusion- Held the Appellant did not submit final Resolution Plan nor participated in the Challenge Mechanism and in the negotiation process only two Resolution Applicants participated. We are of the view that any submission of the Appellant regarding process of CIRP not having conducted in accordance with CIRP Regulations cannot be entertained.
Held that appellant is an Unsuccessful Resolution Applicant who after submitting preliminary Resolution Plan did not submit final Resolution Plan and did not participated in the Challenge Mechanism. Further the Resolution Plan of the SRA has already been approved by the order of the same date passed in plan approval application, as noted above, which order was unsuccessfully challenged by another Unsuccessful Resolution Applicant (Consortium of Sakshi Chandana) who had participated in the process and was one of the two Resolution Applicant’s whose plans were considered by the CoC. The Appeal filed by the Consortium of Sakshi Chandana challenging the approval of Resolution Plan has also been dismissed by this Tribunal by order dated 11.02.2025, as noted above, and plan approval of the SRA has been affirmed. We, thus, are of the view that above is the another reason for not entertaining the appeal challenging the order rejecting objection raised by the Appellant.
