Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

37. The Respondent No. 1 submitted that the Appellant, through his lawyer Mr. Anuj Solanki, has made repeated misrepresentations in the past six months, with the same request in all applications--namely, to stay, delay, or reject the approval of the Resolution Plan. In the first instance, the Appellant objected to the Resolution Plan at the hearing on 17.10.2022, but was informed by the Adjudicating Authority that he was not a party and could not raise objections Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 916 of 2023, 792 of 2023 & 1034 of 2024 without filing a separate IA. In the second instance, the Appellant filed IA 3525 of 2022 under Section 60(5) of the Code, falsely claiming that the Resolution Professional was improperly appointed and raising personal allegations against the Resolution Professional, thereby seeking rejection of the Resolution Plan. The third misrepresentation involved the Appellant filing IA 726 of 2023 under Section 47 of the Code, where he again misrepresented the existence of undervalued transactions without providing any supporting data, despite the Resolution Plan already filing a fraud application being heard in IA 993 of 2023. Finally, in the fourth instance, the Appellant filed Contempt Application 4 of 2023, once again seeking to stay the approval of the Resolution Plan. The Respondent No. 1 emphasized that these actions highlight the Appellant's ongoing attempts to derail the CIRP and undermine the Resolution Plan.