(1.) These civil appeals are essentially directed against the common judgment and order dtd. 17/2/2022, as passed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Chennai Bench (Hereinafter also referred to as 'NCLAT' / 'the Appellate Tribunal'), in a batch of appeals in relation to the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process ('CIRP', for short) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Hereinafter also referred to as 'IBC' / 'the Code'), concerning the corporate debtor, Appu Hotels Limited (Hereinafter also referred to as 'the corporate debtor'), whereby the Appellate Tribunal has reversed the order dtd. 15/7/2021, as passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Chennai (Hereinafter also referred to as 'NCLT'/ 'the Tribunal' / 'the Adjudicating Authority'); and while rejecting the resolution plan in question, has remanded the matter to the committee of creditors ('CoC', for short) with directions to the resolution professional ('RP', for short) to proceed from the stage of publication of Form 'G', and invite the expression of interest ('EOI', for short) afresh as per the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 (Hereinafter also referred to as 'the CIRP Regulations').
(2.) In view of multiple issues raised in this batch of matters, where several steps have been taken at different stages and different parties are having different stands and interests, we may draw a brief outline with salient features of the factual and background aspects, in order to indicate the contours of the forthcoming discussion.
(3.) The aforesaid order of NCLAT dtd. 17/2/2022 is under challenge before this Court by the resolution applicant as also by the resolution professional on several counts, which could be broadly summarised thus: First, that Regulation 35 of the CIRP Regulations does not mandate sharing of the valuation report to the CoC and instead mandates only sharing of liquidation value. Second, that the non-core assets were not significant in value and the valuation was communicated to and agreed upon by the members of the CoC on 15/12/2020. Third, that non-publication of Form G on the designated website was a mere procedural irregularity which did not prejudice interests of any of the parties. Fourth, that the commercial wisdom of CoC was not justiciable and once the CoC had approved the resolution plan by the requisite majority, there was very limited scope of interference by the Courts. Fifth, that the Appellate Tribunal has overstepped its jurisdiction by declaring the resolution applicant ineligible under Sec. 88 of the Trusts Act and disqualified under Sec. 164(2)(b) of the Companies Act. Sixth, that the claims of related party creditors cannot be treated at par with the unrelated creditors. And seventh, that Sec. 12-A IBC application of the promoter was merely a dilatory tactic and that he was not entitled to file any such application. These and other grounds raised in these appeals have been duly contested by the respondents with their respective stands and positions in these cases. This apart, some of the financial creditors have also moved the applications for impleadment and have placed their respective viewpoints for consideration.