National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Dismisses Appeal Against NCLT Order on Adjournment Application. The Tribunal upheld the NCLT's dismissal of the Appellant's adjournment application due to lack of locus standi and unsubstantiated claims.

Tribunals: National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Bench: New Delhi
  • 1
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The appeal was filed against an order dated 14.08.2026 by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) which dismissed the Appellant's application for adjournment in insolvency proceedings concerning Nimitaya Hotel & Resorts Ltd. The Appellant, a member of the Suspended Board of Directors, sought the adjournment pending the resolution of a disciplinary proceeding against the Resolution Professional, which he claimed would conclude within two weeks. The NCLT found that the Appellant lacked locus standi to request such an adjournment and dismissed the application with costs. The Appellant contended that the NCLT erred in its assessment of his standing and the impact of the pending disciplinary proceedings on the case. The Tribunal noted that the application for replacement of a Respondent had already been withdrawn and highlighted the history of numerous interlocutory applications filed by the Suspended Board, suggesting a pattern of delay. The Tribunal ultimately dismissed the appeal, affirming the NCLT's findings and emphasizing the need for efficient judicial proceedings. The appeal was dismissed, and pending applications were also rejected.

Headnote

A) Company Law - Locus Standi - Adjournment Application - Dismissal of Application - Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 7 - The Appellant's application for adjournment was dismissed on grounds of lack of locus standi and unsubstantiated claims regarding disciplinary proceedings against the Resolution Professional. The Tribunal upheld the NCLT's decision, emphasizing the need for genuine litigation and the avoidance of delaying tactics. Held that the dismissal was justified (Paras 5-9).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the Appellant had locus standi to seek adjournment of proceedings and whether the NCLT erred in dismissing the application.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, affirming the NCLT's order and emphasizing the lack of locus standi of the Appellant. The Tribunal also dismissed pending applications IA No. 6085 - 6087 of 2026 and IA No. 6088 - 6090 of 2026.

Law Points

  • locus standi
  • adjournment application
  • insolvency proceedings
  • disciplinary proceedings
  • resolution plan approval
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2026 LawText (NCLAT) (09) 183

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1586 - 1588 of 2026

2026-09-22

Justice Yogesh Khanna, Barun Mitra

Mr. Nakul Mohta, Mr. Manoranjan Nayak, Mr. Hitesh Nagar, Mr. Kumar Anurag Singh, Mr. Zain A. Khan, Mohd. Abran Khan, Mr. Sumesh Dhawan, Mr. Ajay Kumar, Mr. Pankaj Sethi, Mr. Vijayant Goel, Mr. Sagar Thakkar, Ms. Kavya Takriwal, Mr. Abhishek Anand, Mr. Karan Kohli, Ms. Palak Kalia, Mr. Manoj, Ms. Ridhima Malhotra, Ms. Shruti Srivastva

Sanjeev Mahajan

Nimitaya Hotel & Resorts Ltd. & Ors

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

Nature of Litigation

Appeal against the dismissal of an adjournment application in insolvency proceedings.

Remedy Sought

The Appellant sought to adjourn proceedings until the resolution of disciplinary actions against the Resolution Professional.

Filing Reason

The Appellant alleged forgery and unauthorized withdrawal of funds, prompting disciplinary proceedings.

Previous Decisions

The NCLT had previously dismissed similar applications filed by the Suspended Board.

Issues

Whether the Appellant had locus standi to seek adjournment Whether the NCLT erred in dismissing the application

Submissions/Arguments

The Appellant argued that the NCLT wrongly held he had no locus standi The Appellant contended that the disciplinary proceedings would conclude soon and impact the case

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal held that the Appellant lacked locus standi to seek adjournment and that the NCLT's dismissal of the application was justified due to unsubstantiated claims and a history of delaying tactics.

Judgment Excerpts

The application is rejected for lack of locus standi as well as lack of merits. We find that the Applicant is having no locus standi to ask for sweeping adjournment in pending matters.

Procedural History

The appeal arose from an order of the NCLT dismissing an adjournment application filed by the Appellant, which was followed by the Appellant's appeal to the Tribunal.

Acts & Sections

  • Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016: Section 7
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Quashes Externment Order in Bombay Police Act Case — Excessive Geographical Extent and Duration Without Justification. Order externs petitioner from four districts for two years based on crimes in two police station limits; held a...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Upholds Election Commission in Delimitation Dispute Over Villages Shifted by River Course Change. Section 9(1)(b) of Representation of the People Act, 1950 and Section 11(1)(b) of Delimitation Act, 1972 Bar Alteration of Constituency Bo...