Pine Food Industries Limited ("PFIL") is one of the top FMCG player and listed entity in India. It is a leading manufacturer and marketer of various edible oils, food products and eatables. Its Authorized Capital is ₹ 25

Pine Food Industries Limited ("PFIL") is one of the top FMCG player and listed entity in India. It is a leading manufacturer and marketer of various edible oils, food products and eatables. Its Authorized Capital is ₹ 252.00 crore and Paid-up Capital is ₹ 65.00 crore. PFIL has borrowed from various Banks and Financial institutions in India and its borrowings were around ₹ 12,000 Crore. Due to unprecedented crash in global prices of the oil seeds coupled with falling revenues in the oil business gave a crippling blow to PFIL. AB Bank and BC Bank filed an application under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ("Code") for initiating the insolvency resolution process against PFIL (hereinafter called as the Corporate Debtor ("CD")). After hearing both the parties, National Company Law Tribunal ("NCLT") admitted the petition filed. The Financial Creditor proposed the name of Kapoor to act as Interim Resolution Professional ("IRP"). An application was filed before NCLT by one of the creditors who made a claim before the Resolution Professional ("RP") stating that the CD owed to pay USD 10.00 crore, based on the Bills of Exchanges, ordering the CD to pay this creditor for the goods supplied by another party. On making of such claim before the RP, it has been rejected by him saying that it is not a Financial Debt as it is an Operational Debt therefore, it could not be considered as Financial Debt as claimed by applicant therein. Vijay Kumar Jain, suspended Director of the CD, filed an application before the NCLT under section 60(5) of the Code seeking an order for setting aside the decision taken by the Committee of Creditors ("CoC") disallowing the erstwhile representatives of the Corporate Debtor including Vijay to participate in the CoC meetings; declare that the CoC meeting is non est; direct the RP to ensure active participation of the applicant in the meetings of CoC; provide all the documents and information to the applicant. RP filed application in NCLT under section 43(1) of the Code for seeking reversal of the amounts that were debited from the current accounts of the CD maintained with XYZ Bank which had been debited by the XYZ Bank before the insolvency commencement date and were utilized against the payment of the dues owed by the CD to a Bank in relation to the Letter of Credit issued by them. The RP submits that the payment of the impugned amount lead to preferential treatment towards XYZ Bank by the CD as such payment has the effect of putting Respondents (i.e. XYZ Bank) in a beneficial position than it would have been in liquidation of the CD in accordance with Section 53 of the Code. It is further stated by the RP that the payments of the impugned amount by the Corporate Debtor were not in the "ordinary course of business" of the CD. NCLT, vide its order, held that the respondent Bank, which had debited an amount aggregating to ₹ 65.98 crores from the current accounts of the Corporate Debtor is directed to reverse the said amount within 30 days from the date of the said order. Since the resolution plan is already submitted and under examination of the CoC without consideration of this amount, therefore the appropriation of this amount will be decided by the CoC. XYZ Bank filed appeal in NCLAT against the order of NCLT. The main plea taken by the Appellant Bank is that the RP before filing an application under Section 43(1) of the Code formed no independent opinion nor afforded an opportunity to the Appellant to explain about the transactions in question. The RP called for Expression of Interest ("EOI"). 28 prospective resolution applicants showed their interest out of which two prospective resolution applicants were rejected as one was disqualified under Section 29 A of the Code (being related party) and the other was a financial investor who did not meet the criteria in the EOI evaluation parameters. The applicant reviewed the four Resolution Plans submitted by the Resolution Applicants and found that only the plans submitted by 2 Resolution Applicants (RA1 and RA2) provided for the corporate insolvency resolution of the Corporate Debtor as a whole and on a going concern basis. The RP filed application under section 30(6) of the Code, seeking order for approval of the resolution plan for the Corporate Debtor submitted by the consortium led by PAL (RA2) as approved by the members of Committee of Creditors (CoC). The said resolution plan was approved by a vote share of 96.85%. RP filed application in NCLT for approval of Resolution Plan. While the said application was pending for consideration before the NCLT, Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Vijay Kumar Jain Vs. Standard Chartered Bank & Ors pronounced the judgment. Under the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, the approval of the NCLT to the resolution plan of RA2 was interdicted. In compliance of the above-mentioned Hon'ble Supreme Court order, NCLT by its order directed as follows: "Resolution Professional is directed to comply with the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and submit the report within the stipulated time as provided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court." Thereafter, NCLT approved the Resolution Plan submitted by RA2 and passed orders and directions on the reliefs and concession sought. Since in Para 38, NCLT in their order rejected some of the relief sought, RA2 moved to NCLT for modification of order of NCLT. In the application filed, RA2 had sought substitution of Para 38 of the order of NCLT approving the Resolution Plan of RA2 as under: Existing Para "38. Any relief sought for in the Resolution Plan, where the contract/agreement/ understanding/ proceedings/actions/notice etc is not specifically identified or is for future and contingent liability, is at this moment rejected." Proposed Para "All claims that were either not filed or not admitted during CIRP in terms of the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 shall stand extinguished. Further, claims admitted/ verified by the Resolution Professional shall stand settled and extinguished as per the Resolution Plan." Resolution Plan approved by NCLT of RA2 leads to a 60% haircut for the lenders. RA2 completed its acquisition of PFIL. Referring decided case and relevant provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016 and Rules and Regulations made thereunder, answer the following questions: Whether formation of Joint Lender Forum will have any bearing over filing of this case or not ? Brief, referring the provisions of IBC, 2016, who can initiate the case under the Code.