Summary of Opinion: National Company Law Appellate Tribunal — Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1526 of 2019

Factual and Procedural Background

This appeal was filed by Alpha Corp Development Pvt. Ltd. (Appellant) against Om Drishian International Ltd. (Respondent) and was listed before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal on 02.01.2020. The Bench recorded two questions for consideration: (i) whether the appeal is premature in the absence of approval of the resolution plan; and (ii) whether defaults in one project of a corporate debtor can be combined with other projects (where no default is alleged) for initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process on the ground that the corporate debtor is common.

After the order was dictated, counsel for the Appellant (Mr. Rudreshwar Singh) sought permission, on instructions, to withdraw the appeal with a specific limited liberty: that the Appellant may approach the appropriate forum at a later stage if any plan(s) approved are alleged to be violative of sub‑section (3) of Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal with that limited liberty, but expressly denied liberty to challenge the impugned order dated 12th December, 2019. The appeal was disposed of as withdrawn. The order is signed by Justice S. J. Mukhopadhaya (Chairperson) and Justice Bansi Lal Bhat (Member, Judicial).

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the appeal is premature in the absence of approval of the resolution plan?
2. Whether a default committed in one project of the Corporate Debtor can be treated together with other projects (where no default is alleged) to initiate the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process on the ground that the Corporate Debtor is common?

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The written record of the order contains limited reasoning. The procedural sequence recorded is:

• The Bench framed two questions for consideration (see Legal Issues Presented above).
• After the order had been dictated, the Appellant, through its counsel, sought permission to withdraw the appeal with a specified, narrow liberty to challenge any approved plan(s) later if they were alleged to contravene sub‑section (3) of Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
• The Tribunal accepted the request to withdraw the appeal but confined the Appellant's liberty: the Appellant was permitted to move at an appropriate stage with respect to alleged violations of sub‑section (3) of Section 61, but was explicitly denied liberty to challenge the impugned order dated 12th December, 2019.

The opinion does not elaborate further legal analysis on the two framed questions; it records the procedural disposition and the limited liberty granted upon withdrawal.

Holding and Implications

The appeal is disposed of as withdrawn.

Implications (limited to what the opinion states):

• The Appellant is permitted to withdraw the appeal but retains a specific, limited liberty to approach the appropriate forum at a later stage if any approved resolution plan(s) are alleged to violate sub‑section (3) of Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
• The Appellant is denied liberty to challenge the impugned order dated 12th December, 2019 itself.
• The opinion does not state or establish any broader legal precedent beyond the immediate procedural disposition of this appeal.

Miscellaneous

Counsel recorded in the proceedings include: for the Appellant — Mr. Rudreshwar Singh, Mr. Monish Surendran and Ms. Mahima Malhotra; for the Respondent — Mr. Abhijeet Sinha, Mr. P. Nagesh and Mr. Iswar Mohapatra; Mr. A. K. Manchanda appeared for an intervenor (the Allottees) and indicated an intention to intervene.

This summary is confined strictly to the information contained in the provided opinion and does not infer facts or arguments beyond the text.