Summary of National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Order

Factual and Procedural Background

This appeal challenges the Adjudicating Authority's order dated 13 December 2021 disposing I.A. No. 367/2021 in CP No. (IB) 349/ALD/2018 (filed by the Applicant/Appellant). The Adjudicating Authority directed the applicant to place certain affidavits (referred to as being at Page Nos. 290 to 298) along with a covering letter addressed to the sole member of the Committee of Creditors (CoC) for consideration.

"Therefore, the ends of justice will be met if we direct the applicant herein to place the affidavits at Page Nos. 290 to 298 alongwith the covering letter addressed to the sole member of the CoC for consideration. Since we do not wish to disturb level playing field, the other resolution applicants whose plans are also being considered will also be permitted to place any modification in their submitted resolution plan before the CoC for its consideration. Such modifications shall be communicated to the CoC, no later than 48 hours from now. Accordingly, I.A No. 367/202 is disposed of."

The present appeal was heard on 13 January 2022 before the NCLAT, which recorded submissions from counsel and considered whether the Adjudicating Authority erred in permitting other resolution applicants to modify their plans after the applicant placed its documents with the CoC.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Adjudicating Authority erred in permitting other resolution applicants to submit modifications to their resolution plans in order to maintain a "level playing field" after the Applicant placed certain affidavits and documents before the CoC.
2. Whether Regulation 39(1A) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, as amended on 30 September 2021, was applicable in the facts of this case (this issue was raised by the Appellant).

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Appellant (through Mr. Abhishek Anand) argued that the modifications to the Applicant's plan were already known to everyone, and therefore there was no justification for permitting other resolution applicants to modify their plans after that disclosure; consequently, no opportunity ought to have been granted to others.
• The Appellant's counsel also contended that Regulation 39(1A), as amended on 30 September 2021, was not applicable, and that the Resolution Professional was incorrect in asserting its applicability.

Respondent's Submissions

• The Respondent (through Mr. Abhijeet Sinha) submitted that pursuant to the Adjudicating Authority's order dated 13.12.2021, the Applicant did submit the plan on 15 December 2021, and that the Committee of Creditors considered that submission on 21 December 2021.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Tribunal recorded the Appellant's grievance that allowing other resolution applicants to modify their plans after the Applicant's disclosures was unnecessary because the modifications were already known. The Court examined that contention and found no substance in it.

The Tribunal agreed with the Adjudicating Authority's approach that to avoid disturbing the level playing field among competing resolution applicants, it was appropriate to permit all other resolution applicants to place modifications to their submitted resolution plans for consideration by the CoC. The Adjudicating Authority's direction to allow modifications (to be communicated to the CoC within 48 hours) was therefore upheld as proper in the circumstances.

With respect to the challenge concerning the applicability of Regulation 39(1A) (amended on 30 September 2021), the Tribunal declined to enter into that issue or decide it on the present facts. The Bench stated there was no justification to adjudicate on the applicability of the regulation in the context of this appeal.

The Tribunal also noted the factual assertion by the Respondent that the Applicant submitted its plan on 15 December 2021 and that the CoC considered the submission on 21 December 2021.

Holding and Implications

DISMISSED. The appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal.

Implications:

• The Tribunal upheld the Adjudicating Authority's direction permitting other resolution applicants to submit modifications to their plans so as to preserve a level playing field; consequently, those permissions stand.
• The Tribunal did not decide the substantive question regarding the applicability of Regulation 39(1A) as amended on 30 September 2021—explicitly stating it would not enter into that issue on the facts of this case.
• The direct effect is the dismissal of the appeal and the continuation of the process before the CoC consistent with the Adjudicating Authority's directions; the opinion does not purport to lay down any new precedent beyond that direct ruling.

(End of summarized opinion based solely on the provided text.)