1. This application is filed under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 by Mr. Birat Chandra Dagara. The applicant states that he is one of the stakeholders of the Respondent's Company. The applicant had leasehold of mine iron ore of 618.0 hectares or 1527.10 acres in Village- Suleipat under Subdivision Babanghatt in the Mayurbhanj District of Orissa. The said mine was transferred to the applicant vide Govemment of Orissa Order No. 8531MG, dated 24.08.1984 and executed on 10.10.1984 vide Registration No. 526. The applicant submits that the respondent company enter into a joint venture agreement dated 12.04.2010 to incorporate a joint venture company to hold Mining Lease and also to set up a manufacturing plant in the Mayurbhanj District of Orissa, along with an ancillary agreement dated 12.04.2010 for raising iron ore from aforesaid applicant's leased mine. Meanwhile, the petition was filed by the State Bank of India vide CP (IB) No. 37llKBl2017, under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 against the respondent company and Hon'ble NCLT, Kolkata Bench vide its order dated 03.08.2017 admitted and initiated the CIRP.
3. The applicant submits that disputes arose between parties on 29.10.2015 and respondent company issued notice to the applicant, invoking arbitration clause of JV. In view of the terms of settlement dated 13.06.2017 executed between the parties, the Arbitrator Award was passed on 20.01.2018.
4. The applicant further states that new management has to abide by the Resolution Plan approved by the Hon'ble Tribunal, and prays for the following relief: -
(i) This Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to direct the new management to stick with the Resolution Plan and Act Accordingly. gd-- t3I (sd
(ii) Not to intervene and refrain from the mining lease for iron ore over an area of 618.00 hectares at Suleipat in Mayurbhanj District of the applicant as the same are not the part of the information memorandum/ Resolution Plan of the Corporate Debtor.
(iii) To direct the respondent company to bear the litigation cost and compensate to the applicant the losses arises in the aforesaid matter.
(iv) To clariff whether the mining lease of the applicant is included in the asset list ofthe CIRP proceeding initiated by the State Bank of India against the Respondent Company? (") To restrain the respondent company from mining over the mining lease area of 618.00 hectares of Suleipat in Mayurbhanj District.
5. The respondent has filed an Execution Petition on 24.01.2019 bearing Execution Petition No. 01/2019 under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the Learned Judge of District Court at Baripada for enforcement of an Arbitral Award dated 20.0L 2018. This was Execution Petition No. 01/2019, the Learned District Judge, Mayurbhanj, Baripada vide order dated 13.09.2019 rejected the objection filed by the applicant and directed the applicant to perform the Act as required under t4] SA *..\gJ- the Arbitral Award dated 15.10.2019 and the petitioner was aggrieved by this order. The respondent has not filed reply, has made oral and filed written submission as well. The respondent states that dispute between the petitioner and respondent arose prior to commencement of CIRP. The applicant herein did not adhere to the terms of settlement. Hence, the respondent herein filed Execution Petition, Hon'ble District Judge by the order dated 13.09.2019 stated that "perform the act required under the Award by 15.10.2019; foiling which, the H.R. shall be at liberty to take steps in accordance with low to enforce the Award. The case is adjourned to dated frxed (15.10.2019) for submission of compliance report by the purtiesforfurther order". However, aggrieved by this order the applicant filed application challenging it before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa. However, the applicant could not obtain any order to stay. Hence, the applicant has filed this application which is not maintainable under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
6. The respondent further submits that after approval of Resolution Plan, the rights of the Respondent would flow out of the Resolution Plan as such, the Hon'ble Adjudicating Authority cannot re-open the Resolution Process at this stage. Further, if there is any violation under the approved Resolution Plan the provision under Section 74 of Insolvency and rsr gd. ----'a- Bankruptcy Code, 2016, could be invoked. The applicant is not a stakeholder and not part of the proceedings. He has no locus standi to file such frivolous application before this Adjudicating Authority.
7. We have heard both parties, perused the documents and affidavit filed in this case. It is clear that there has been dispute between the applicant and respondent. However, they have arrived and executed terms of settlement before Arbitrator. The terms of settlement have not been adhered by the petitioner. Hence, the Execution Petition was filed by the respondent. Since, the petitioner did not succeed before the Execution Court and also before the Hon'ble High Court, this frivolous application, questioning the Resolution Plan has been filed. It is clear there were disputes between the two parties regarding the lease agreement and terms of settlement thereunder, these are beyond the scope of this Adjudicating Authority. The applicant has no locus standi to question the approved Resolution Plan at this stage. There is no merit in this application. The dispute under lease deed and terms of settlement are not subject matter of the Resolution Plan and beyond the scope of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code,2016. sd 'uu /'-t' (sd.