The case involves an application filed by Arrow Engineering Limited (AEL) seeking impleadment in IA 357 of 2023. The applicant in IA 357 of 2023 made allegations against AEL, claiming collusion with the IRP to prejudice other financial creditors. AEL argues that any order in favor of the applicant in IA 357 of 2023 would adversely affect its interests and that it is entitled to a hearing to oppose IA 357. The respondent contends that AEL lacks locus standi and is not a necessary party in IA 357 of 2023, citing a previous order (IA 777 of 2022) where the Tribunal adjudicated on the impleadment of AEL as a financial creditor. The respondent argues that issues regarding claim rejection are between the IRP and claimants, excluding third parties. The Resolution Professional
…Arrow Engineering Limited (AEL) filed an application seeking to be included as a party in IA 357 of 2023. The basis for this request was that the applicant in IA 357 had made allegations against AEL, suggesting collusion with the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) to the detriment of other financial creditors. AEL argued that any decision favoring the applicant in IA 357 would negatively impact AEL's interests and that AEL should have the opportunity to contest IA 357. The respondent argued that AEL lacked the legal standing (locus standi) to be a party in IA 357, citing a previous Tribunal decision (IA 777 of 2022) that addressed AEL's involvement as a financial creditor. The respondent claimed that issues of claim rejection were solely between the IRP and the
…Sign in to view the parties.
Corporate Ins…
Tribunal adjudicated on…
The case involves an application filed by Arrow Engineering Limited (AEL) seeking impleadment in IA 357 of 2023. The applicant in IA 357 of 2023 made allegations against AEL, claiming collusion with the IRP to prejudice other financial creditors. AEL argues that any order in favor of the applicant in IA 357 of 2023 would adversely affect its interests and that it is entitled to a hearing to oppose IA 357. The respondent contends that AEL lacks locus standi and is not a necessary party in IA 357 of 2023, citing a previous order (IA 777 of 2022) where the Tribunal adjudicated on the impleadment of AEL as a financial creditor. The respondent argues that issues regarding claim rejection are between the IRP and claimants, excluding third parties. The Resolution Professional
…Arrow Engineering Limited (AEL) filed an application seeking to be included as a party in IA 357 of 2023. The basis for this request was that the applicant in IA 357 had made allegations against AEL, suggesting collusion with the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) to the detriment of other financial creditors. AEL argued that any decision favoring the applicant in IA 357 would negatively impact AEL's interests and that AEL should have the opportunity to contest IA 357. The respondent argued that AEL lacked the legal standing (locus standi) to be a party in IA 357, citing a previous Tribunal decision (IA 777 of 2022) that addressed AEL's involvement as a financial creditor. The respondent claimed that issues of claim rejection were solely between the IRP and the
…Corporate Ins…
Tribunal adjudicated on…