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 Resolution Professional in IA 357 of 2023 stated no objection to impleading AEL as a party respondent to allow it to respond to allegations.
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 of 2023 had made allegations against AEL, suggesting collusion with the IRP to the detriment of other financial creditors. AEL argued that any favorable order to the applicant in IA 357 of 2023 would negatively impact AEL's interests, thus entitling AEL to a hearing to oppose IA 357. The respondent argued that AEL lacked the legal standing (locus standi) to be a party in IA 357 of 2023. The respondent cited a previous Tribunal decision in IA 777 of 2022, which had already addressed the issue of AEL's impleadment as a financial creditor. The respondent also stated that AEL had not challenged the order dated
…Sign in to view the parties.
A previous order (IA 777 of 2022) was issued…
IA 357 of 2023 was filed, in which…
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 Resolution Professional in IA 357 of 2023 stated no objection to impleading AEL as a party respondent to allow it to respond to allegations.
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 of 2023 had made allegations against AEL, suggesting collusion with the IRP to the detriment of other financial creditors. AEL argued that any favorable order to the applicant in IA 357 of 2023 would negatively impact AEL's interests, thus entitling AEL to a hearing to oppose IA 357. The respondent argued that AEL lacked the legal standing (locus standi) to be a party in IA 357 of 2023. The respondent cited a previous Tribunal decision in IA 777 of 2022, which had already addressed the issue of AEL's impleadment as a financial creditor. The respondent also stated that AEL had not challenged the order dated
…A previous order (IA 777 of 2022) was issued…
IA 357 of 2023 was filed, in which…