Sundeep Thakar v. Raj Ralhan And Others

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion arises from Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 101 of 2021 heard through virtual mode on 17.02.2021. The Appellant, Mr. Sundeep Thakur (represented by Mr. Anirudh, Advocate), challenged the Resolution Plan approved by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Chandigarh Bench, by an order dated 12th January, 2021. During the hearing a procedural query was raised as to whether the Appellant's claim as a workman/employee had been admitted or rejected.

The Resolution Professional's counsel (Mr. Abhinav Vashist, Senior Advocate) informed the Tribunal that a claim of Rs. 4,16,210/- in favour of the Appellant had been admitted by the Interim Resolution Professional (reference to Page 229, Appeal Paper Book Vol. II). The Appellant's counsel contended that the admitted claim related to an earlier period of employment, whereas a subsequent stint as Vice President generated salary claims for a period after the commencement of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) which had not been admitted.

Counsel for Respondent No.1 sought permission to place additional documents on record which were not part of the Appellant's appeal record and was permitted to do so. It was noted that the relief clause in the memo of appeal sought directions to include Rs. 44,78,931/- as CIRP costs with 18% interest and to direct the Resolution Professional to pay salary dues from reimbursements he had received while acting as Resolution Professional.

The Tribunal observed that no specific ground had been pleaded to assail the approved Resolution Plan and that the Committee of Creditors had not been made a party to the appeal. Faced with possible dismissal on technical deficiencies, the Appellant requested permission to withdraw the appeal with liberty to file a fresh appeal in accordance with the grounds set out in Section 61(3) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal with the sought liberty, and the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

Bench: Justice Bansi Lal Bhat (Acting Chairperson) and Dr. Ashok Kumar Mishra (Member, Technical).

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Resolution Plan approved by the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT), Chandigarh Bench, dated 12th January, 2021, could be assailed in the present appeal.
2. Whether the relief sought in the memo of appeal—to include Rs. 44,78,931/- as CIRP costs with 18% interest and to direct the Resolution Professional to pay salary dues from reimbursements—should be granted.
3. Whether the procedural deficiencies identified (absence of pleaded grounds specifically assailing the Resolution Plan and non-arraying of the Committee of Creditors as a respondent) warranted dismissal of the appeal or another procedural disposition.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Appellant asserted that a portion of his claim admitted by the Interim Resolution Professional (Rs. 4,16,210/-) pertained to an earlier stint of employment, and that in a later stint as Vice President he had salary claims for the post-CIRP period which had not been admitted.
• Faced with procedural deficiencies in the appeal, the Appellant requested permission to withdraw the appeal with liberty to file a fresh appeal, referencing the grounds set out in Section 61(3) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Respondent No.1 / Resolution Professional's Arguments

• Senior counsel for the Resolution Professional informed the Tribunal that a claim of Rs. 4,16,210/- in favour of the Appellant had been admitted by the Interim Resolution Professional (referenced from the appeal record).
• Counsel for Respondent No.1 sought permission to place additional documents on record that were not included in the Appellant's Appeal Paper Book and highlighted the relief clause in the memo of appeal seeking inclusion of Rs. 44,78,931/- as CIRP costs with interest and payment of salary dues from reimbursements received by the Resolution Professional.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Tribunal's analysis focused on procedural sufficiency rather than a substantive appraisal of the approved Resolution Plan. The court proceeded as follows:

1. Examined whether the appeal contained pleaded grounds specifically challenging the approved Resolution Plan and observed that no such grounds had been set out in the appeal papers.
2. Noted that the Committee of Creditors, a key stakeholder in CIRP matters and ordinarily an interested party in challenges to a Resolution Plan, had not been arrayed as a party respondent in the appeal.
3. Recognised that these omissions constituted technical deficiencies that could lead to dismissal of the appeal without reaching substantive issues.
4. On the procedural posture, and after receiving submissions from counsel (including acknowledgement that a portion of the Appellant's claim had been admitted and the Appellant's request to withdraw), the Tribunal permitted withdrawal of the appeal with liberty to file a fresh appeal, expressly referencing the grounds permitted under Section 61(3) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
5. Accordingly, instead of exercising an adverse procedural disposition that would foreclose the Appellant's ability to seek relief on substantive grounds, the Tribunal accepted the withdrawal subject to all just legal exceptions and disposed of the appeal as withdrawn.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, and the Appellant was granted liberty to file a fresh appeal in accordance with the grounds set out in Section 61(3) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, subject to all just legal exceptions.

Implications:

• The direct effect is procedural: the present appeal ends by withdrawal rather than by an adjudication on the merits of the challenge to the Resolution Plan.
• The Appellant retains the opportunity to bring a fresh appeal addressing the procedural deficiencies identified (including pleading grounds to assail the Resolution Plan and properly arraying necessary parties such as the Committee of Creditors), invoking Section 61(3) of the IBC as appropriate.
• The opinion does not set or announce any new substantive legal precedent; it resolves the matter by permitting withdrawal and granting liberty to re-file, based on the procedural deficiencies noted in the record.