Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal Filed by Suspended Director in Insolvency Case, Terms It “Wholly Incompetent” [Read Judgment]
It reaffirmed that once insolvency is admitted, only the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) can represent the corporate debtor under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.
![Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal Filed by Suspended Director in Insolvency Case, Terms It “Wholly Incompetent” [Read Judgment]](https://images.taxscan.in/h-upload/2026/04/17/2133447-site-img17-1jpg.webp "Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal Filed by Suspended Director in Insolvency Case, Terms It “Wholly Incompetent” [Read Judgment]")
In a recent ruling the Supreme Court of India has dismissed an appeal filed by suspended director of Ambro Asia Private Limited, ruling that the appeal was “wholly incompetent” and incapable of being cured by amendment. The matter started from insolvency proceedings initiated by Unox S.P.A., an operational creditor, under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code...
In a recent ruling the Supreme Court of India has dismissed an appeal filed by suspended director of Ambro Asia Private Limited, ruling that the appeal was “wholly incompetent” and incapable of being cured by amendment.
The matter started from insolvency proceedings initiated by Unox S.P.A., an operational creditor, under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016. On 18 April 2024, the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), New Delhi Bench admitted the application and appointed Piyush Moona as Interim Resolution Professional (IRP). From that date, the management of the corporate debtor vested solely in the IRP under Section 17(1)(a) of the Code.
Despite this,the applicant,Nitendra Kumar Tomer filed an appeal before the National Company LawAppellate Tribunal (NCLAT) in the company’s name. Although the NCLAT acknowledged that such an appeal was not maintainable, it allowed Tomer in August 2025 to amend the memo and continue proceedings in his personal capacity. The Supreme Court found this indulgence to be a serious error, stressing that the appeal was not merely defective but “incompetent in its very inception.”
The bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran highlighted that under Section 61(2) of the IBC, appeals must be filed within 30 days, with a maximum extension of 15 days. By permitting amendment more than a year later, the NCLAT had “completely desecrated the statutory prescription.”
Distinguishing earlier precedents that dealt with curable procedural defects, the Court pointed that once insolvency is admitted, only the IRP has authority to represent the corporate debtor. Permitting a suspended director to amend and pursue a time-barred appeal was a violation of the Code’s strict mandate.
The court observed that “Though the decision finally rendered by the NCLAT in the said appeal went against the suspended director, whereby he is now before this Court, we are not prepared to look into the merits of the said order, as the said appeal ought not to have been entertained.”
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
