Creditors of unrelated corporate debtors lack locus standi to challenge resolution plan approval as "persons aggrieved" under Section 61.

The Appellant, an Operational Creditor of CAN Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., challenged the order dated 30.09.2025 passed by NCLT Ahmedabad.

The impugned order approved a Resolution Plan submitted by Respondent No. 1 (SRA) for the Corporate Debtor, Afcan Impex Private Limited.

The Appellant contended that Respondent No. 1 was statutorily ineligible under Section 29A of the IBC because he was a promoter/director of CAN Enterprises, a company already undergoing CIRP before NCLT Mumbai.

Respondent No. 1 had offered a 100% settlement of the Appellant’s claims in the CAN Enterprises matter, which the Appellant rejected.

Crucially, the Appellant was not a creditor or stakeholder in the Afcan Impex CIRP and did not participate in the proceedings before the Adjudicating Authority.

By the time of the appeal, the Resolution Plan for Afcan Impex had been fully implemented, with all creditors paid.

Section 61 of the IBC, which restricts the right of appeal to a "person aggrieved".

Supreme Court’s interpretation in GLAS Trust Company LLC v. BYJU Raveendran, establishing that a "person aggrieved" must be a stakeholder (creditor, applicant, etc.) in the specific collective proceedings (in rem).

Section 29A(c) and (e) of the IBC.

Section 164 of the Companies Act, 2013.

The precedent in M.K. Rajagopalan v. Dr. Periasamy Palani Gounder, which held there is no "deemed disqualification" under Section 164; a formal declaration by the Registrar of Companies (RoC) is mandatory to trigger ineligibility under Section 29A(e).

The Tribunal first determined that the Appellant lacked locus standi. Under Section 61, an appellant must demonstrate a direct legal injury; here, the Appellant was an Operational Creditor of a separate entity (CAN Enterprises) and held no claim or stake in Afcan Impex.

The Tribunal noted that the Appellant's grievance was collateral and remote, rather than a direct outcome of the Afcan Impex resolution.

On the merits of Section 29A, the Tribunal found that the mere pendency of CIRP against a related company does not trigger ineligibility under Section 29A(c) unless the account was classified as an NPA under RBI guidelines, for which no evidence was provided.

Regarding Section 29A(e), the Tribunal held that Respondent No. 1 could not be "deemed" disqualified as a director; in the absence of a formal RoC order under Section 164 of the Companies Act, the resolution applicant remains eligible.

Finally, the Tribunal observed that the Appellant's failure to participate below and the subsequent full implementation of the plan barred the challenge.

It further held that Respondent No. 1 was not ineligible under Section 29A, as there was neither an NPA classification nor a formal disqualification order under the Companies Act.

Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the NCLT's approval of the Resolution Plan was upheld. No order was made as to costs.