National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Dismisses Company Appeals Due to Subsequent Approval of Resolution Plan. The Tribunal ruled that the Adjudicating Authority must independently consider the newly approved plan without influence from prior findings.

Tribunals: National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Bench: New Delhi
  • 2
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The case involved two company appeals filed by Amar Ujala Ltd., a member of the Committee of Creditors (CoC) of Raama Paper Mills Ltd., challenging orders from the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) dated 07.01.2026. The appeals were based on the NCLT's decision to remit the resolution plan back to the CoC for reconsideration under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (I& B Code). The Appellant expressed concerns that findings in the impugned order could prejudice their rights, especially since the CoC had subsequently approved the plan with a 99.38% vote on 20.04.2026 and 21.04.2026. The Tribunal noted that the approval of the plan by the CoC frustrated the implications of the earlier NCLT order. It emphasized that the Adjudicating Authority must independently consider the newly approved plan without being influenced by the findings of the earlier order. The Tribunal requested the Adjudicating Authority to expedite the decision on the resolution plan, mandating a timeline of three months from the production of the certified copy of the order. The appeals were thus rendered infructuous and dismissed.

Headnote

A) Insolvency Law - Appellate Jurisdiction - Challenge to NCLT Order - Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 61 - The Appellant challenged the NCLT order dated 07.01.2026, which remitted the resolution plan back to the Committee of Creditors (CoC) for reconsideration. The Tribunal held that the subsequent approval of the plan by the CoC rendered the challenge infructuous and directed that the Adjudicating Authority must consider the new plan independently, without influence from the earlier findings. Held that the decision on the approved plan should be made expeditiously (Paras 2-5).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the findings of the impugned order would prejudice the rights of the Appellant after the subsequent approval of the plan by the Committee of Creditors.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as infructuous due to the subsequent approval of the resolution plan by the CoC and directed the Adjudicating Authority to consider the new plan independently and expeditiously.

Law Points

  • Appellate jurisdiction
  • reconsideration of plan
  • independent decision-making
  • expeditious resolution
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2026 LawText (NCLAT) (09) 46

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 500 of 2026, Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 502 of 2026

2026-09-08

Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma, Arun Baroka, Indevar Pandey

Mr. Swapnil Gupta, Mr. Vaibhav Mendiratta, Adv. Abhishrut Singh, Mr. Ajay Garg, Adv. Shivani Jaiswal, Adv. Abhirup Das Gupta, Adv. Vagisha Tiwari, Adv. Surbhi Sachdeva, Adv. Umesh K. Burnwal, Adv. Ankit Verma, Adv. Manav Sharma

Amar Ujala Ltd.

Aditya Kumar Chauhan & Ors., Sandeep Kumar Agrawal

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Company appeals challenging NCLT orders regarding resolution plan.

Remedy Sought

The Appellant sought to challenge the NCLT's order remitting the resolution plan back to the CoC.

Filing Reason

The Appellant filed the appeals due to concerns over potential prejudice from the NCLT's findings.

Previous Decisions

The NCLT had previously remitted the resolution plan back to the CoC for reconsideration.

Issues

Whether the findings of the impugned order would prejudice the rights of the Appellant after the subsequent approval of the plan by the CoC.

Submissions/Arguments

The Appellant argued that the findings in the NCLT order could prejudice their rights. The Respondents contended that the subsequent approval of the plan rendered the challenge infructuous.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal held that the approval of the resolution plan by the CoC rendered the earlier NCLT order's implications moot, necessitating an independent consideration of the new plan by the Adjudicating Authority.

Judgment Excerpts

the challenge given by the Appellant is to the order dated 07.01.2026 the plan was remitted back to be reconsidered by the CoC the very implication of the impugned of 07.01.2026... stands frustrated decision to be taken by the Adjudicating Authority... shall be independently taken into consideration

Procedural History

The Appellant filed two company appeals challenging the NCLT orders dated 07.01.2026 regarding the resolution plan, which were heard together.

Acts & Sections

  • Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code: Section 61, Section 60(5), Section 30(6), Section 31
  • NCLT Rules: Rule 11
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal Regarding Suit Abatement on Plaintiff's Death — Clarifies Legal Representatives' Rights.
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Bombay at Nagpur Bench Holds Writ Petitions Survive Death of Delinquent in Service Dispute — Right to Sue Under Order 22 CPC Allows Legal Heirs to Continue Judicial Review. Punishment of Compulsory Retirement and Pension Cut Challenge...