SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(NCLT) 1244

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL
Ms. Reeta Kohli, Ms. Madhu Sinha, JJ
Astral Agro Ventures – Appellant
Versus
Mr. Vakati Balasubramanyam Reddy – Respondent
I.A. No. 1851 OF 2024|CP (IB) No. 144 of 2021



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Adv. Madhavi Nallurai
For the Respondents: Adv. Akash Menon, R1, Adv. Pulkitesh Dutt Tiwari, R2, CA Ankit Pitti, R3

An entity that has not submitted a resolution plan lacks locus standi to contest the validity of another approved resolution plan within insolvency proceedings.

Headnote:(A) Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Sections 29A and 60(5) - Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process initiated for Corporate Debtor - Applicant challenges resolution plan alleging irregularities and ineligibility of Respondent as resolution applicant, citing lack of compliance with eligibility criteria and procedural violations. (Paras 1-9)

(B) Locus Standi - An entity that has not submitted a resolution plan cannot challenge another resolution plan or the insolvency process as they are not deemed aggrieved persons. (Paras 5-6)

(C) MSME Exemption - Provisions of Section 29A(c) do not apply to MSMEs, thus ineligibility claims against the Respondent fail. (Paras 7-8)

Facts of the case:
The Applicant, Astral Agro Ventures, filed an application seeking to reject the resolution plan approved by the Committee of Creditors (CoC) for the Corporate Debtor, asserting material irregularities, procedural violations, and impropriety in the resolution process and the ineligibility of the Respondent under Section 29A. The Tribunal highlighted that the Applicant did not submit a resolution plan nor paid the required Earnest Money Deposit (EMD), which invalidated their locus to challenge.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the Applicant's claims were based on misrepresented facts and established that the SRA did not fall under the ineligibility provisions of Section 29A because the Corporate Debtor qualified as an MSME.

Issues: The key issues included the Applicant’s locus standi to challenge the resolution plan, adherence to procedure during the CIRP, and eligibility of the Respondent.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that to raise objections, one must be a party with standing in the insolvency proceedings, which the Applicant lacked, as they failed to submit a resolution plan or EMD.

Result: Application dismissed.

Table of Content
1. eligibility and conduct of the rp. (Para 10 , 11 , 12)
2. ineligibility of sra under section 29a. (Para 13 , 14)
3. collusion and procedural violations alleged. (Para 15 , 16 , 17)
4. defense against allegations by rp. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21)
5. evaluation of resolution plan and validity. (Para 22 , 23 , 24)
6. determining the applicability of section 29a. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29)
7. final dismissal of the application. (Para 30 , 31)

ORDER

Per: Reeta Kohli, Member (Judicial)

I. I. The above application I.A. No. 1851 OF 2024 is filed by Astral Agro Ventures (hereinafter referred as the “Applicant”) seeking directions against Mr. Vakati Balasubramanyam Reddy & Ors. (hereinafter referred as the “Respondent/Respondents”) under Section 60 (5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy code, 2016 (hereinafter called “Code”), praying for following reliefs A. Allow the present Application;

B. Reject the resolution plan submitted by the SRA, and approved by the CoC;

C. Declare the SRA as ineligible under section 29A of the Code;

D. Order the removal of Respondent No. 1 as the RP of the Corporate Debtor, and direct the IBBI to initiate and enquiry into the conduct of the CIRP of the Corporate Debtor;

E. Appoint an independent resolution professional in respect of the Corporate Debtor; F. Direct the RP and the CoC to allow the applicant to submit its Resolution Plan and consider the same in fair and equitable manner;

G. Pass any other order or direction that this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit and proper, in facts and circumstances of the present case II. Submissions of the Applicant

1. The present Application was filed by the Applicant, i.e., Astral Agro Ventures, which is a Prospective Resolution Applicant (“PRA”) of the Corporate Debtor, Megi Agro Chem Limited.

2. This Hon’ble Tribunal, vide its order dated 05.08.2022, initiated Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process ('CIRP') of the Corporate Debtor and Respondent No. 1, Mr. Vakati Balasubramartyam Reddy, was appointed as the Interim Resolution Professional (‘IRP’) and further, vide order dated 06.01.2023, was appointed as the Resolution Professional of the Corporate Debtor. Subsequently, Respondent No. 1 made Form G public announcements on 05.08.2022 and 04.10.2022, inviting Expressions of Interest ('EOI') from interested and eligible Prospective Resolution Applicants ('PRAs') for the Corporate Debtor, as provided under regulation 36(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 ('CIRP Regulations’).

3. As submitted by the Applicant, due to non-receipt of any resolution plans, the Form G public announcement was republished on 05.07.2023, with the last date for receipt of EOIs set as 20.07.2023. Pursuant to the said public announcement, the Applicant, vide an email dated 18.07.2023, reached out to Respondent No. 1 seeking detailed invitation and eligibility criteria, which were subsequently provided.

4. As contented, the Applicant submitted the EOI regarding the CIRP of the Corporate Debtor on 20.07.2023, the said EOI was also accompanied by an Earnest Money Deposit ('EMD') of Rs. 5,00,000/- along with all requisite documents as mandated under regulation 36A(7) of the CIRP Regulations. Thereafter, Respondent No. 1 issued the Information Memorandum ('IM'), Evaluation Matrix ('EM'), and Request For Resolution Plan ('RFRP') to the Applicant on 26.07.2023. The initial last date for submission of the resolution plan was 03.09.2023, which was subsequently extended to 04.09.2023.

5. As stated, the Applicant, owing to unavoidable circumstances surrounding the EMD payment, sought a 15-day extension for submitting the resolution plan vide an email dated 04.09.2023 addressed to Respondent No. 1 and the same was also communicated to the Committee of Creditors ('CoC') on 06.09.2023. The said request of the Applicant was duly acknowledged by the CoC by guaranteeing consideration of the same in their next meeting.

6. Further, as su

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top