The Appellate Tribunal held that the entitlement to amend the petition does not empower a party to bypass procedural requirements, and added that no party can alter the record of the court without its permission.

Citing Rule 155 of the NCLT Rules, 2016 and Supreme Court precedent in the case of Gurdial Singh & Ors. vs. Raj Kumar Aneja, the NCLAT asserted that all necessary amendments must be carried out only with the Tribunal’s express leave, particularly when they alter substantive reliefs.

The Bench, comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson), Barun Mitra (Technical Member) allowed all connected appeals, including and the impugned NCLT order dated 22.07.2024 was quashed, and Deloitte’s Company Application (CA No. 60/2024) was allowed.

The Appellate Tribunal directed the Union of India to delete prayer clause (e) from the amended petition. However, it clarified that the government is at liberty to file a fresh application seeking similar reliefs, which may be considered by the NCLT in accordance with law.

NCLAT Dismisses Appeal by Suspended Company Director: Upholds Insolvency Against the Company

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has upheld the order of the Mumbai Bench of the NCLT that admitted a Section 7 petition against Future Ideas Company Ltd. The appeal, filed by suspended director Anil Biyani, was dismissed on April 9, 2025.

The NCLAT disagreed, noting that the Debenture Trust-cum-Mortgage Deed (DTMD) dated 15 October 2018 explicitly prohibited the company from assigning any of its obligations without the written consent of the debenture trustee.

The appellate bench comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member), Barun Mitra (Technical Member),Arun Baroka (Technical Member) also clarified that it was well within the jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Authority to look into the contractual and transactional context of the debt in question. It rejected the argument that the dispute should have been dealt with in a civil court and not in the insolvency forum.

NCLAT Quashes Resolution Plan for Violating IBC Provisions & Ignoring Government Dues

The Delhi bench of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) quashed a resolution plan for Twenty-First Century Castings Pvt. Ltd., noting violations of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016, and failure to settle statutory dues owed to the Gujarat State Tax Department.

The NCLAT, however, sided with the tax department, ruling that the *Rainbow Papers* judgment remains binding and unequivocally establishes that statutory dues under GVAT create a secured interest by operation of law.

The bench relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Rainbow Papers in which the court held that “ if a company is unable to pay its debts, which should include its statutory dues to the government and/or other authorities, and there is no plan which contemplates dissipation of those debts in a phased manner or uniform proportional reduction, the company would necessarily have to be liquidated and its assets sold and distributed in the manner stipulated in Section 53 of the IBC.”

The tribunal noted that the resolution plan violated Section 30(2) of the IBC and that it is a clear case of material irregularity.

NCLAT, comprising Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Judicial Member) and Naresh Salecha (Technical Member), allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order. The matter was remanded back to the Adjudicating Authority for fresh consideration, directing that the tax department's dues be treated as secured debt.

Resolution Plan Approved by 83.46% Creditors Cannot Be Challenged by Lone Homebuyer u/s 60(5) of IBC

The Delhi bench of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) held that the resolution plan approved by 83.46% of creditors cannot be challenged by a lone homebuyer under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency andBankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016.

The adjudicating authority noted that “ the applicant being part of a class of homebuyers, the majority of whom have already voted in favour of the resolution plan of respondent No. 2, has no independent locus standi to raise objections with regard to the manner of conduct of CIRP, and hence, the present IA is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.”

The NCLAT observed that the appellant, being one of the 600 homebuyers of the corporate debtor, is part of the class of financial creditors. The tribunal noted that although individuals may have different opinions, the vote cast by the majority has to be taken into consideration.

The bench comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson), Barun Mitra (Technical Member), and Arun Baroka (Technical Member) noted that in the present case, 83.46% of the creditors in the class have voted in favour of the plan, and thus the adjudicatory authority was right.

NCLAT: Only RP or Liquidator Can File plea u/s 43 of IBC: NCLAT Dismisses Homebuyer’s Application

The Delhi bench of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) dismissed the single home buyer’s application, noting that an application under Section 43 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016, can only be filed by an insolvency professional while acting as a resolution professional (RP) or liquidator and no one else.

The adjudicating authority rejected the application through the impugned order, noting that the appellant, being a single home buyer, has no authority to file an application under Section 43 of the Act. The adjudicating authority also imposed a cost of Rs 50,000 on the applicant.

The NLCAT held that the application under Section 43 filed by the appellant, who is a homebuyer, cannot be entertained as a resolution professional to file an application for avoidance of preferential transactions.

The bench comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson), Barun Mitra (Technical Member) and Arun Baroka (Technical Member) upheld the impugned order but deleted the Rs. 50,000 cost imposed on the appellant.

NCLAT Allows Appeal, Approves Resolution Plan for Appellant: Held NCLT Overstepped by Interfering in CoC’s Commercial Wisdom

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) in a recent case, has overturned the order of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Chandigarh Bench, which had rejected the resolution plan for Trishul Dream Homes Ltd. The appellate body has now approved the resolution plan submitted by Vashishth Builders and Engineers Ltd. and Vashishth Estates Ltd. (in consortium), directing the NCLT to pass necessary consequential orders within 60 days.

The NCLAT, in its analysis, found that none of the objections raised by the NCLT constituted a valid ground for rejection of the resolution plan under Section 30(2) of the IBC. The appellate body asserted that once the CoC has exercised its commercial wisdom and approved a resolution plan that complies with legal requirements, the adjudicating authority is not permitted to interfere.

The Tribunal comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson), and Members (Technical) Barun Mitra and Arun Baroka, upheld the clause in the plan that allowed the SRA to retain proceeds from avoidance applications (PUFE claims), citing Regulation 38(2)(d), which empowers applicants to propose how such recoveries are handled.

NCLAT Sets Aside NCLT Order in IL&FS Case: Parties Succeed in Appeal Over Unauthorised Amendment

The principal bench of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has allowed multiple appeals filed by former auditors and executives of IL&FS Financial Services Ltd. (IFIN), including Deloitte Haskins & Sells LLP, Kalpesh Mehta, Rajesh Kotian, Milind Patel, Udayan Sen, and Manu Kochhar, who were impleaded in the government’s petition against IL&FS under Sections 241 and 242 of the Companies Act, 2013.

The tribunal set aside an order passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at its Mumbai Bench. The Appellate Tribunal ruled that the amendment introduced by the Union of India to include an additional relief, prayer clause (e), in the main company petition was carried out without judicial approval and was therefore not sustainable.

The two-member bench of the appellate tribunal comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Barun Mitra (Technical Member) further held that the 2019 order permitting amendment via “further applications” clearly implied that a separate application would be necessary to introduce new reliefs. The government’s omission of this procedural step, therefore, rendered the amendment invalid.

NCLAT Dismisses Appellant’s Appeall Against NCLT Order: Upholds Section 10A Bar

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has dismissed an appeal filed by VPR Mining Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., upholding the order of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), NCLAT Indore Bench, which had rejected a Section 9 application filed under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

The appellant had approached the NCLAT against the NCLT’s order dated 05.04.2024, arguing that the Adjudicating Authority erred in rejecting the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) plea on the ground that the alleged default occurred during the moratorium period specified under Section 10A of the Code.

On the issue of TDS liability, the Tribunal comprising Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain [ Judicial Member] and Mr Naresh Salecha [ Technical Member] held that the non-deposit of TDS with the government, although a statutory obligation, does not constitute operational debt payable to the appellant under the Code. It observed that the liability, in such cases, is between the corporate debtor and the tax authorities and not enforceable through CIRP proceedings initiated by the service provider.

Rejecting the allegation of procedural lapse, the Appellate Tribunal noted that the NCLT had considered the relevant materials and provided opportunity to the parties. The Appellant’s argument regarding denial of natural justice was therefore not accepted.

NCLAT Dismisses Indian Bank's Appeal to Initiate Insolvency Proceedings Against MBL Infra Director

The Principal Bench, National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), New Delhi, has dismissed Indian Bank’s appeal challenging the NCLT’s rejection of its application filed under Section 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), seeking to initiate personal insolvency proceedings against Anjanee Kumar Lakhotia, former director of MBL Infrastructure Ltd.

The appeal arose from an order passed by the NCLT, New Delhi Bench. The case has its roots in the insolvency proceedings of MBL Infrastructure Ltd., which was admitted to the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) in 2017. A resolution plan submitted by Anjanee Kumar Lakhotia, the then promoter and suspended director, was approved by the Committee of Creditors (CoC) with a 78.5% voting share.

The NCLAT bench comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson), Braun Mitra (Technical Member) and Arun Baroka (Technical Member), upheld the NCLT’s order. It observed that the personal guarantor, being the resolution applicant himself, had submitted the resolution plan, which accounted for all assets and liabilities, including those under the earlier guarantee. The tribunal noted that a fresh personal guarantee had been executed in line with the restructuring.

NCLAT Dismisses Appeal of Suspended Directors: Upholds ₹2.65 Cr Recovery Order of NCLT

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench, has dismissed an appeal filed by Praful Satra and other suspended directors of Satra Properties (India) Ltd., challenging an order directing them to refund ₹2.65 crore to the company along with interest.

The appeal arose from an April 2024 order of the NCLT Mumbai Bench, which allowed an application filed by the Resolution Professional (RP), Ms. Vaishali Patrikar, under Section 66 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, alleging that the amount was wrongfully written off and had caused loss to creditors.

The NCLAT held that there was no error in the NCLT’s order. The appellate tribunal noted that the absence of key documents, failure to pursue legal remedies, and lack of clarity regarding the transaction supported the RP’s case under Section 66.

The NCLAT bench comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson), Braun Mitra (Technical Member) and Arun Baroka (Technical Member) held that the appellants failed to substantiate any genuine effort to recover the amount or justify the write-off.

Resolution Plan does not discriminate based on Type of creditors to give preference to secured creditors both having first charge or having residual charges: NCLAT

The New Delhi bench of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal( NCLAT) has held that the resolution plan does not discriminate based onType of creditors to give preference to secured creditors both having first charge or having residual charges.

A three-member bench comprising Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain, Member (Judicial) , Mr. Naresh Salecha,Member (Technical) and Mr. Indevar Pandey, Member (Technical) observed that it is important to understand that the Resolution Plan cannot be approved by the Adjudicating Authority under Section 30 (2) (b) r/w Section 31 of the Code unless a minimum payment is made to the Operational Creditor, dissenting Financial Creditors, which cannot be less than as per Section 53 i.e., related to liquidation value.

The bench held that “ We need to appreciate that the Resolution Plan does not discriminate against the Unsecured Financial due to its classification as a related party, but rather allocates treatment based on its status as an unsecured financial creditor, with such distribution being determined by the CoC in its commercial wisdom and in compliance with the Code. In this connection, it has been brought to our notice that all unsecured financial creditors have been given Nil allocation in the Resolution Plan. Thus, the allegations of the Appellant are legally not tenable.”

NCLAT Sets Aside NCLT Order Dismissing Section 9 Insolvency Plea Against BGM Telecommunications: Remands Matter for Fresh Hearing

The Principal Bench, of the National CompanyLawAppellate Tribunal (NCLAT), New Delhi, has set aside an order passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), which had dismissed a Section 9 application filed by Drive India Enterprise Solutions Ltd., against BGM Telecommunications Pvt. Ltd. The appellate tribunal held that the adjudicating authority had failed to consider the specific facts of the case and erroneously relied upon decisions rendered in unrelated matters involving different corporate debtors.

The matter related to an application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, filed by Drive India Enterprise Solutions Ltd. who is an operational creditor, seeking initiation of the CorporateInsolvencyResolution Process (CIRP) against BGM Telecommunications Pvt. Ltd.

The NCLAT, after hearing both sides, found merit in the appellant’s contention that the NCLT had not applied a judicial mind to the specifics of the current dispute. The appellate tribunal observed that while precedents could guide adjudication, mechanical reliance on earlier judgments without comparative analysis of facts is impermissible, particularly in insolvency matters, where the existence or otherwise of a default must be independently established.

The NCLAT bench comprising Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Judicial Member), Naresh Salecha (Technical Member) and Indevar Pandey (Technical Member), held that even if the earlier petitions were found to be unmeritorious, that in itself did not justify the dismissal of a fresh petition involving different transactions, different corporate debtors, and possibly different facts. Each insolvency application must be adjudicated on its own merits.

NCLAT allows admission of CIRP Application as Debt established with record of NeSL and default

The New Delhi bench of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal( NCLAT) has allowed the admission of CIRP Application as Debt established with record of NeSL and default.

Fabtech Technologies International Ltd, the appellant challenged the order dated 10.07.2023 by which an application was filed under Section 7 of the Insolvency andBankruptcy Code, 2016 against Buildmighty Techno Pvt. Ltd.

The Tribunal dismissed the application on the ground that in the absence of loan agreement it is not possible to determine the date on which the default took place. It is also observed that the Financial Creditor has failed to demonstrate as to how and when the loan was repayable by the CD.

A two-member bench comprising Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain, Member (Judicial) and Naresh Salecha, Member (Technical) observed that there was a debt which has been admitted and established with the record of NeSL and default All these facts indicates that the Tribunal has committed an error in not considering the affidavit dated 15.05.2023 which the Appellant had placed on record with demand notice as well as the record of the NeSL about the amount in default.

Threshold u/s 4 of IBC should be met at time of Filing of CIRP application: NCLAT

The New Delhi bench of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal( NCLAT) has allowed an appeal filed by the operational creditor holding that the threshold under section 4 of the Insolvency Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016 has to be seen at the time of filing of the application or at the time of admission of the application.

The Principal Bench, comprising Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Member-Judicial) and Naresh Salecha (Member-Technical) noted that the rulings the appellant cited are relevant to the current circumstances and directly address the appellant's issue. The bench pointed out that by rejecting the application, the adjudicating authority had made a patent error.

The bench allowed the appeal by setting aside the impugned order and restored the Section 9 application back to the tribunal to decide the Section 9 application in accordance with the law.

NCLAT Admits Appeal in Exclusive Capital Dispute: Keeps Tribunal Proceedings Subject to Supreme Court Orders

The Principal Bench of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), New Delhi, has admitted an appeal filed by Exclusive Capital Limited (ECL) against interim directions passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), even as related proceedings remain pending before the Supreme Court of India and the Reserve Bank of India (RBI).

The matter arose from a corporate dispute under Sections 241 and 242 of the Companies Act, 2013, and revolves around the question of whether a Tribunal that has already disposed of a petition can entertain fresh applications relating to the same matter.

The NCLAT bench comprising of Justice Rakesh KumarJain (Judicial Member), Justice Mohammad Faiz Alam Khan (Judicial Member) and Naresh Salecha (Technical Member), issued notice in the appeal and ordered that any decision taken by the NCLT would remain subject to the outcome of the appeal and the final order of the Supreme Court.

NCLAT Upholds Insolvency Against Jaypee Cement, Dismisses Appeal by Suspended Director

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has upheld the commencement of insolvency proceedings against Jaypee Cement Corporation Ltd. (JCCL), dismissing the appeal filed by its suspended director, Alok Gaur.

The appeal had challenged the 22 July 2024 order of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Allahabad Bench, which had admitted a Section 7 application filed by the State Bank of India (SBI) against JCCL over a default of more than ₹363 crore.

The NCLAT found no merit in the arguments advanced by the suspended director. It held that mere framing of a restructuring plan or signing an MRA does not, in itself, result in novation unless all conditions are met and parties perform their obligations.

The tribunal bench comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Alok Srivastava, (Technical Member) rejected the claim that JCCL’s debt was automatically extinguished due to the restructuring efforts.

NCLAT Upholds Private Sale of Liquidation Asset Despite Higher Withdrawn Offers

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has dismissed a series of appeals filed by Bhavik Bhimjyani, a former director and majority shareholder of Neelkanth Township & Construction Pvt. Ltd. (NTCPL), against the sale of a prime 80-acre land parcel in Alibaug through a private sale process. The appeals challenged the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) Mumbai Bench’s decision to permit the sale to a related party, Leisure Enterprises LLP, for ₹58.51 crore, despite higher offers reportedly being available.

Upholding the NCLT’s decision, the NCLAT noted that the private sale was approved only after multiple public auctions had failed and that the deal was within the regulatory framework. The bench accepted the Liquidator’s argument that many of the so-called better offers never materialized into serious bids.

The NCLAT also dismissed allegations of procedural impropriety, ruling that Regulation 33 does not require dual permissions before and after initiating private sale discussions. The Tribunal accepted that the NCLT had evaluated all competing offers before allowing the private sale to Leisure Enterprises.

The two-member NCLAT bench comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Arun Baroka (Technical Member) also took note of a prior finding by the NCLT under Section 66 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, which held that Bhimjyani had unjustly enriched himself at the expense of the corporate debtor and its creditors.

NCLAT Dismisses Appeal by Former Promoter: Upholds Insolvency Admission by NCLT

The Principal Bench of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), has rejected an appeal filed by Aditya Bhatnagar, former promoter and shareholder of Xyron Technologies Ltd., challenging the admission of a Section 7 insolvency petition against the company by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT).

The NCLAT found no merit in the appeals. The bench noted that while the date of default mentioned by the bank was March 31, 2016, the existence of continuing debt and acknowledgment of liability by the corporate debtors in their audited financial statements between FY 2016 and FY 2023 had extended the limitation period under Section 18 of the Limitation Act.

The NCLAT asserted that the issuance of a recall notice in January 2018, repeated correspondence about overdue payments, and failure of the corporatedebtors to clear dues pointed toward a clear and ongoing default. Litigation challenging the NPA tag, the Tribunal held, did not erase the bank’s underlying right to recover its dues.

The Tribunal Bench comprising Justice AshokBhushan (Chairperson), Barun Mitra (Technical Member) and Arun Baroka (Technical Member) held that once debt and default are established, and limitation is preserved through acknowledgment, admission under Section 7 of the IBC is a logical step.

NCLAT Dismisses Appeal by Personal Guarantor in Bank of Maharashtra Case: Criticizes Casual Approach to IBC Proceedings

The (NCLAT) has upheld the decision of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), which had dismissed the Section 94 insolvency application filed by Nilanjana Ghosh, a personal guarantor, for non-prosecution. The appellate tribunal also rejected her restoration plea, observing that the petitioner’s conduct reflected a deliberate misuse of the IBC moratorium to stall SARFAESI proceedings initiated by Bank of Maharashtra.

The case arose from insolvency applications filed separately by Nilanjana Ghosh and her husband, Suprio Ghosh, under Section 94 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, in December 2022.

The NCLAT agreed with the lower court’s findings. The appellate bench comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson), Barun Mitra (Technical Member) and Arun Baroka (Technical Member) held that the petitioners had shown no sufficient cause for restoration under Rule 48(2) of the NCLT Rules, 2016, which governs restoration of cases dismissed for default.

The NCLAT also observed that despite repeated directions, the petitioners failed to assist the Resolution Professional (RP) in preparing the required report under Section 99. The RP had filed a compliance affidavit indicating that crucial documents including net worth statements, were not submitted by the debtors. Consequently, discrepancies remained unresolved, and the petition was left incomplete.

NCLAT Orders NCLT to Consider Former Gensol Director Harsh Singh's Argument Against Probe

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has directed a case put forth by Harsh Singh, a former independent director of Gensol Engineering, to the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) for review and conclusion. Singh is arguing against an investigation that was ordered against him and other employees of the organization.

A two-member bench comprising Justice Mohammad Faiz Alam Khan, Member (Judicial) and Mr. Naresh Salecha, Member (Technical) is not inclined to interfere in the impugned ad-interim order passed by the tribunal. However, as the Impugned Order is purely of ad interim nature and the Appellant has already appeared before the tribunal, the Appellant would be at liberty to file objections pertaining to the stay application or for vacation of ad interim / Impugned Order within a very short period to say within two days and if such application and objections are filed the Tribunal would consider the same and pass a reasoned order.

The appeal is finally disposed of with a direction that the Appellant who has already appeared before the Tribunal may submit its objection to the interim stay application or may file a stay vacation application within two days from t​​oday taking all the grounds.

NCLAT Upholds Eviction of Hotel Operator from Hotel Property Post Resolution Plan

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has dismissed an appeal filed by Nazru S. Basheer, proprietor of Hotel MB International, challenging an NCLT order that directed him to vacate the hotel premises following the approval of a resolution plan for Pancard Clubs Ltd.

The dispute is centered around a Conducting Agreement executed in July 2017, under which the hotel building, owned by Pancard Clubs Ltd., a company that later underwent insolvency, was leased to Basheer for a period of six years. The appellant had been operating Hotel MB International under this agreement.

The NCLAT bench comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan [Chairperson], Justice N. SeshaSayee [Judicial Member] , Mr Barun Mitra [ Technical Member] , rejected all the arguments put forward by the appellant. It noted that the agreement expired in August 2023. Even if there was an expectation of extension, that hope was rendered void once the moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC came into effect with the commencement of CIRP.

The Tribunal also found no merit in the argument that the NCLT had lost jurisdiction after the approval of the resolution plan. It cited previous judgments, such as Jhanvi Rajput Automotive Pvt. Ltd. v. RP of Rajpal Abhikaran Pvt. Ltd., to reaffirm that the Adjudicating Authority retains powers under Section 60 of theIBC even post-resolution, especially when it concerns properties of the corporate debtor.

NCLAT Upholds Condonation of 26 days of Delay in filing of Report u/s 106 of I & B Code by RPl due to delayed submission of Repayment Plan by Personal Guarantor

The Chennai bench of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) upheld the condonation of 26 days of delay in the filing of the report under section 106 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (I & B Code), 2016 by the Resolution Professional (RP) due to the delayed submission of the repayment plan by the personal guarantor.

The Adjudicating Authority, while admitting the application under Section 95 (1) of the I & B Code, 2016, vide its order of 07.06.2022, as against the Personal Guarantors for the credit facilities, which was provided by the Financial Creditor, State Bank of India to M/s. Scotts Garments Limited, the Corporate Debtor, had initially appointed Mr. Hem Chandra as the Resolution Professional.

A two-member bench comprising Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma, Member (Judicial) and Jatindranath Swain, Member (Technical) viewed that, by Condonation of Delay of 26 days rather, has facilitated the decision-making process to be expedited in deciding the matter.

NCLAT Dismisses Proceedings Initiated u/s 9 of I & B Code against Kerala Medical Services Corporation based upon a material concealment of fact

The Chennai bench of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) dismissed the proceedings initiated under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC ), 2016, against the Kerala Medical Services Corporation Private Limited which was based upon a material concealment of fact.

“A Person who approaches the Judicial forum for adjudication has to approach it with clean hands”, the two-member bench comprising Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma, Member (Judicial), and Jatindranath Swain, Member (Technical) ruled.

The tribunal relied on the observation of Apex Court that, “a person who approaches the judicial forum for adjudication of his rights has to approach it with clean hands and if there is a material concealment of fact or facts, which has got a vital bearing on the merits of the matter, he is not even supposed to be heard.”

NCLAT permits RP to Issue Fresh Form G and to Invite Eol from New Eligible Resolution Applicants by strictly Adhering to Time Bound CIRP Process

In a recent ruling, the Chennai bench of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) permits the Resolution Professional (RP) to issue a fresh Form G and to invite expressions of interest (EoI) from new and eligible resolution applicants by strictly adhering to the time-bound CIRP process.

A two-member bench comprising Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma, Member (Judicial), and Jatindranath Swain, Member (Technical) found no demerits in the proposal of the RP as contained in the application IA and in the decision of the CoC to invite fresh EoI by issuing fresh Form G for the reason that inviting new PRAs to submit EoIs will certainly increase competition and, in all likelihood, result in higher Bids.

The bench found that more time will be required to complete the CIRP process. Since, timely resolution of insolvency is the essence of I & B Code, 2016, this can be taken care of by adhering to strict timelines.

NCLAT Allows Appeal Against Titan Industries , Condones Delay In Filing Restoration Application In Contempt Proceedings u/s 425 of Companies Act

The Chennai bench of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) allowed the appeal against Titan Industries and condoned the delay in filing restoration application in contempt proceedings under section 425 of Companies Act, 2013.

The three appellants had initiated proceedings under Section 108 of the Companies Act of 1956 ( “Act of 1956”) against Titan Industries Ltd. The Appellant had prayed for a grant of a decree of permanent injunction, in favour of the Plaintiff/Appellants, as against the Respondent/Defendant, thereby restraining them from transferring 400 shares bearing Registration Folio.

the Adjudicating Authority and the Adjudicating Authority by an order dated 30.08.2019, after observing that the contempt petition was filed on 09.05.2019 and that after its filing the Registry has pointed out certain defects and they were granted time to remove the defects, which was not complied with, got the Contempt Petition listed for hearing on 28.08.2019.

A two-member bench Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma, Member (Judicial) and Jatindranath Swain, Member (Technical) observed that, compliance of an order itself will not amount to purging of Contempt, because various other aspects are required to be considered, such as whether the order was complied with in the stipulated time frame and who was supposed to comply the order. The averment of compliance, cannot be derived to be taken as to the basis for rejecting the Restoration Application along with Delay Condonation Application filed in the Contempt Petition, because the extent and nature of compliance would be an issue, which is required to be considered on merits when the Contempt Petition itself is considered after its Restoration and not before that.

NCLAT Sets Aside Status Quo Order in TIIPL Voluntary Liquidation; Affirms Shareholders’ Right to Replace Liquidator

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has set aside a status quo order issued by the Adjudicating Authority, allowing the shareholders and directors of Transmissions International India Private Limited (TIIPL) to proceed with the replacement of the erstwhile liquidator, Chandra Prakash Chandra Prakash Jain, with a new appointee, Arun Gupta.

The NCLAT observed that the voluntary liquidation process under Section 59 of the IBC and the accompanying regulations grants the corporate debtor and its shareholders the unequivocal right to appoint and replace the liquidator without judicial interference.

The tribunal noted that the Adjudicating Authority had overstepped its jurisdiction by imposing the status quo order, as the statutory framework does not require its approval for such replacements.

The NCLAT further observed that Chandra Prakash Jain had already been validly replaced before the status quo order was issued, rendering the Adjudicating Authority's intervention unnecessary and contrary to the IBC's provisions.

The tribunal comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson), Justice N. Sesha Sayee (Judicial Member), and Barun Mittal (Technical Member) also dismissed objections regarding the delay in filing the appeals, noting that they were filed within the permissible 45-day window under the IBC.

Challenge Against Court Records Without Filing Correction Application is Invalid: NCLAT

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) benchdismissed an appeal challenging the National Company Law Tribunal's refusal to accept a reply filed after the closure of arguments. The Tribunal held that the record of the Court is correct until and unless an application is made to the same Court for any correction in case, there is any error.

The Tribunal viewed that it has been well settled by the Supreme Court in the case of “State of Maharashtra vs Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak & Anr” decided on 28 July, 1982 - 1982 AIR 1249 that the record of the Court is correct until and unless an application is made to the same Court for any correction in case there is any error.

The bench comprising Justice Rakesh KumarJain (Judicial Member) & Barun Mitra (Technical Member), observed that no correction application was filed by the Appellant that there was no representation on behalf of Respondents No.7, 10 and 11. The Appellant after the arguments were closed on 7th May, 2025 cannot be permitted to file the reply now because if this practice is allowed to be followed then there shall be no end to the filing of the pleadings and the cases cannot be concluded.

Liquidation of Corporate Debtor can be initiated When Successful Resolution Applicant Fails to Obtain Approvals Within One Year: NCLAT

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) bench has held that when a successful resolution applicant fails to obtain necessary approvals within one year from the date of approval of the resolution plan, liquidation of the corporate debtor can be initiated.

The NCLAT bench comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member), Mr Arun Baroka (Technical Member) and Mr Barun Mitra (Technical Member) viewed that in order to prove their bona fides, the appellant requested that the resolution plan money be parked with SBI's Singapore or UAE branch, and the order was granted. Although the appellant promised to deposit the remaining sum, the money is still hidden, even in the United Arab Emirates.

The Tribunal concluded that the necessary permissions were not obtained in the allotted one-year period or even in the NCLT's extended timeframe, which ended on February 8, 2024. The pending liquidation application before the Adjudicating Authority must thus proceed.

Recurring Opportunity could not be granted to Rectify defect in Appeal Against NCLT Order: NCLAT

In a recent case, the NCLAT Chennai bench of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) held that there cannot be a recurring opportunity that could be granted to the appellant to rectify the defects, that too, in an appeal that puts a challenge to the NCLT order dated 29.04.2024, which was passed more than a year back.

A two-member bench comprising Justice Sharad KumarSharma, Member (Judicial) and Jatindranath Swain,Member (Technical) held that there cannot be a recurring opportunity which could be granted to the Appellant to rectify the defects, that too, in an Appeal which puts a challenge to the impugned order dated 29.04.2024, which was passed more than a year back. It clearly shows that there had been a lack of diligence and dereliction on part of the Appellant.

NCLT Has No Authority to Restrain Replacement of Liquidator in Voluntary Liquidation: NCLAT

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench held that the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) has no authority to restrain replacement of liquidator under voluntary liquidation and l set aside the status quo order.

According to the NCLAT, the shareholders and directors of the firm have complete authority to choose or dismiss a liquidator under Section 59 of the IBC and Regulation 5 of the IBBI (Voluntary Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2017.

It was noted that on February 28, 2025, the directors and shareholders passed a resolution to remove the liquidator due to his lack of cooperation and improper performance of his duties. The decision was confirmed on March 17, 2025, and the status quo order was passed on March 28, 2025, after the liquidator had already been appointed. Since the NCLT lacked the power to enforce the status quo and stop the business from carrying out its judgment, it violated the law.

The NCLAT bench comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member), Mr Arun Baroka (Technical Member) and Mr Barun Mitra (Technical Member) held that as the company had followed the correct legal procedure to replace the Liquidator, no further approval from the NCLT was required.

NCLAT Upholds Resolution Plan Providing Contingencies being lawful

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has upheld the resolution plan providing contingencies being lawful. It was found that the plan complied with the CIRP Regulations, 2016, and Section 30(2)(b) of the IBC.

The NCLAT bench comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member), Mr Arun Baroka (Technical Member) and Mr Barun Mitra (Technical Member) observed that, resolution applicants had to have a minimum net worth of ₹90 lakhs in accordance with the eligibility requirements adopted at the fifth CoC meeting. With a net value of 93 lakhs, respondent No. 2, Casa Italia Social Welfare Association, satisfied the requirements. Consequently, it is unfounded for the appellant to assert that Respondent No. 2 was ineligible.

The tribunal found that the plan includes four alternative options to resume construction, all subject to approval by the competent authority—the Board. These options are not uncertainties but lawful contingencies designed to ensure compliance with building norms.

NCLAT Upholds Assignment of Unsustainable Debt to Resolution Applicant; Finds No Violation of SARFAESI Section 9(1)(e) & RBI Clause 10.1(v)

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) upheld the assignment of unsustainable debt under the resolution plan, finding it in compliance with Section 9(1)(e) of the SARFAESI Act and Clause 10.1(v) of the RBI Master Directions, 2024. The Tribunal held that such an assignment does not violate the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (SARFAESI) Act, 2002, or the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code(IBC), 2016.

It is to note that the resolution plan in question categorized the financial debt into sustainable and unsustainable portions, with the sustainable part proposed to be paid upfront to financial creditors and the unsustainable portion to be assigned to the Resolution Applicant. This plan was approved by the Committee of Creditors (CoC) with a 73.38% majority.

The bench comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson), Arun Baroka (Technical Member), and Barun Mittal (Technical Member) The tribunal, after going through Section 9(1)(e) of the SARFAESI Act and Clause 10.1(v) of the RBI-Master Directions, held that the ARC’s action constituted a valid “settlement of dues”, which is a permissible reconstruction measure under law. The Tribunal observed that the term “settlement of dues” is of wide import and can include various modes, including assignment, provided it forms part of a commercial plan duly approved under the IBC process.

The Tribunal found no contravention of the RBI's Master Directions or the SARFAESI Act. NCLAT concluded that the plan complied with all regulatory provisions.

NCLAT Sets Aside NCLT Order Rejecting Demerger Scheme, Noting Unjustified Valuation Objections in Closely-Held Family Entities

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has set aside an order by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), which had dismissed a demerger scheme between two closely held family companies, Lincon Polymers Private Limited and Lincon Polyplast Private Limited. The NCLAT held that the NCLT’s objections to the valuation and share swap ratio were unjustified, observing that the scheme was a family arrangement with unanimous shareholder consent and backed by expert valuation.

The NCLAT, relying on various precedents, noted that courts should not interfere in schemes involving closely held family companies where shareholders unanimously approve the arrangement.

The appellate tribunal comprising Justice Yogesh Khanna (Judicial Member) and Mr. Ajai Das Mehrotra (Technical Member), noted that the valuation here was conducted by IBBI-registered experts, Den Valuation (OPC) Private Limited, and no objections were raised against their competence or methodology. The tribunal concluded that the NCLT’s order was erroneous and directed it to issue consequential directions for convening or dispensing with meetings within three days.

30 days Delay in filing appeal under NCLT rules can be condoned on sufficient cause : NCLAT

The New Delhi benchof the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has held that a 30-day delay in filing an appeal under National CompanyLaw Tribunal (NCLT) rules can be condoned for sufficient cause.

A three-member bench comprising Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain, Member (Judicial) , Mr. Naresh Salecha, Member (Technical) and Mr. Indevar Pandey, Member (Technical) observed that in terms of Rule 48 (2) of the NCLT Rules, 2016, the restoration application is required to be filed by such litigant within 30 days. The court observed that the restoration application was filed by the Appellant on 29.10.2024 which was done within stipulated 30 days. During pleadings, the Respondent submitted that the Appellant did not file the restoration application within stipulated 30 days, since, the Respondent did not receive the copy of such restoration application on time.

It was ruled that as per the Rule 48 of the NCLT Rules, 2016, if sufficient cause is made out, and is within the stipulated 30 days, the Tribunal is obligated to restore the same. Thus, the Rule 48 (2) uses the word “shall” which signifies that if sufficient cause is made out, then it is expected that the Tribunal shall allow restoration application. The purpose of dismissal for non-prosecution is for procurement of the concerned party and his counsel and not to dismiss the appeal without going into the merit.

Relief to Deloitte: NCLAT Sets Aside NCLT Order Allowing Amendment in IL&FS Case Without Judicial Approval

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has granted relief to Deloitte Haskins & Sells LLP and has set aside an order passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), which had permitted the Union of India to amend the Company Petition (CP) No. 3638 of 2018 related to the IL&FS (Infrastructure Leasing & Financial Services Limited) case without seeking prior leave of the court. The NCLAT held that the inclusion of a new prayer clause (e) in the amended petition was unsustainable as it was added without filing a formal application or obtaining judicial approval.

The NCLAT noted that Rule 155 of the NCLT Rules mandates that any amendment to pleadings requires leave of the court. The bench noted that “It is submitted that the provision of Rule 155 of NCLT Rules, 2016, empowers amendment in the petition to the effect that amendment is required to be carried out with leave of the court.

The NCLAT bench, comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Barun Mitra (Technical Member), concluded that the NCLT erred in allowing the amendment without due process. It directed the Union of India to delete prayer clause (e) from the amended petition and clarified that the government could file a fresh application for amendment, subject to judicial scrutiny.