# In the matter of Golden Tobaccco Limited

> NCLT judgment dated 2024-03-22. Citation: TCN-2024-NCLT-01946. The case involves an application filed by Arrow Engineering Limited (AEL) seeking impleadment…

- **Court:** NCLT
- **Order date:** 22 Mar 2024
- **Citation:** TCN-2024-NCLT-01946
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclt-division-bench-court-i-chenn/golden-tobaccco-limited-11d6d577

## Summary

### Background

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

…

## Facts

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

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether Arrow Engineering Limited should be …

**Ratio:** The principle of locus standi dictates that a party must have a sufficient connection to

…

**Reasoning:** The Tribunal considered the arguments for and against impleadment. The respondent argued

…

**Interpretation:** The legal issue revolves around the interpretation of locus standi in the

…

**Application:** The Tribunal ultimately determined that AEL should not be impleaded, implicitly

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** Chitra Ha…; Velamur G Venkata…
- **Appellants:** Arrow Engineering…
- **Respondents:** Golden Tobaccco…; AVM Resolution…
- **Advocates:** Robin Jaisi…; Jacinta D…; +4 more

## Timeline

- **2020-01-01 — CP(IB) 268 of 2…**: Corporate Insolvency…
- **2022-12-21 — Order in IA 77…**: Tribunal adjudicated on the impleadment of the…

## Legal provisions

- [Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 60(5) — Adjudicating Authority for corporate persons](https://caseease.in/legal-provisions/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016/section-60)

---

This is a preview. The full structured summary, issues, precedents and source judgment are available on CaseEase - Legal Intelligence Simplified: https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclt-division-bench-court-i-chenn/golden-tobaccco-limited-11d6d577