Due to a CIRP being filed against the successful RA, the AA directed the RP to re-invite EoIs. The Appellant claimed that the CIRP procedure had already taken 1091 days and that a settlement plan would be submitted. The AA had not granted CIRP an extension of time, hence the assailed ruling was not legally binding. The Appellate Tribunal remanded the case to the AA to determine whether a CIRP extension was necessary and if the Appellant was eligible to submit a settlement plan. The appellant's principal argument was that the Assignment Agreement dated April 17, 2015 is not authentic.
In the instant case titled Ranjit Kapoor v. Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd the issues raised before the NCLAT for clarification were:
Whether the present Appeal preferred by the Appellant is maintainable or not?
Whether the Assignment Agreement is genuine or not?
With regard to the first issue, the Tribunal held that the recent appeal preferred by the Appellant is per se not maintainable in law because it is well established that once a case has been admitted under IBC, the only option available to a party as a 'Aggrieved Person' is to file an 'Appeal,' of course in accordance with the law, against the 'Order of Admission' already passed, rather than to file CA No. 190 (PB)/2020 seeking stay of all pending proceedings in CA No. 455 (PB).
With regard to the second issue, the Adjudicating Authority or this Appellate Tribunal cannot consider whether the Assignment Agreement dated April 17, 2015 is genuine or not until the Corporate Debtor alleges it and raises an objection under Section 65 of the Code. The Corporate Debtor has not filed a complaint with the Adjudicating Authority alleging fraud on the part of the Financial Creditor in order to initiate proceedings under Section 65 of the Code. As a result, this Appellate Tribunal is unable to investigate such a fraud claim.
The NCLAT categorically held that:
"Validity of Assignment Agreement assigned by Bank to asset reconstruction to recover its financial dues from corporate debtor could not be decided by Adjudicating Authority and hence, same could not be a ground to allege malicious intent on part of a financial creditor."