National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Dismisses Appeal in Insolvency Proceedings — No Grounds for Interference Found. The Tribunal upheld the Adjudicating Authority's directions to suspended directors to assist in asset recovery under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Tribunals: National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Bench: NEW DELHI
  • 0
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The appeal was filed by suspended directors of Log 9 Mobility Pvt. Ltd. against an order from the National Company Law Tribunal directing them to assist in the recovery of electric vehicles leased from Gensol EV Lease Ltd. The Appellants contended that the order was coercive and not sustainable as they had no contract with Gensol. The Respondent, a Resolution Professional, argued that the Appellants had obstructed the recovery process by failing to provide necessary information. The Tribunal noted that the Adjudicating Authority had the jurisdiction under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, to issue such directions. The court found that the Appellants had previously acknowledged their responsibility to assist in the recovery of the vehicles, thus dismissing the appeal on the grounds that the directions were appropriate and necessary for the insolvency resolution process. The appeal was dismissed without costs.

Headnote

A) Insolvency Law - Jurisdiction of Adjudicating Authority - Directions to Suspended Directors - Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 60(5) - The Adjudicating Authority directed suspended directors to assist in the recovery of leased vehicles, asserting jurisdiction under Section 60(5) of the IBC. The court held that the directions were valid as they related to the insolvency resolution process and the Appellants had previously accepted responsibility for providing information regarding the vehicles (Paras 8-10).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the directions issued by the Adjudicating Authority to the Appellants were sustainable in law.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The appeal was dismissed as the Tribunal found no merit in the Appellants' arguments against the directions issued by the Adjudicating Authority. The court upheld the jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Authority under Section 60(5) of the IBC to issue such directions.

Law Points

  • Insolvency proceedings
  • jurisdiction of Adjudicating Authority
  • cooperation in asset recovery
  • personal directions to suspended directors
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2026 LawText (NCLAT) (08) 21

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1364 of 2026

2026-08-06

Justice Yogesh Khanna, Barun Mitra, Ajai Das Mehrotra

Mr. Jatin Kumar, Aashray Chaudhary, Mr. Rishi Singhal

MR. AKSHAY SINGHAL, MR. PANKAJ SHARMA

MR. KESHAV KHANEJA, MRS. NEERAJA KARTIK

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

Nature of Litigation

Appeal against an order of the National Company Law Tribunal regarding asset recovery in insolvency proceedings.

Remedy Sought

The Appellants sought to overturn the directions issued by the Adjudicating Authority.

Filing Reason

The Appellants claimed the directions were coercive and not sustainable in law.

Previous Decisions

The Adjudicating Authority had previously directed the Appellants to assist in the recovery of vehicles.

Issues

Validity of directions issued to suspended directors Jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Authority under IBC

Submissions/Arguments

Appellants argued that the directions were coercive and not sustainable as they had no contract with Gensol. Respondent contended that the Appellants obstructed the recovery process by failing to provide necessary information.

Ratio Decidendi

The Adjudicating Authority has wide jurisdiction under Section 60(5) of the IBC to issue directions necessary for the insolvency resolution process, including requiring cooperation from suspended directors.

Judgment Excerpts

The present appeal has been preferred under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Adjudicating Authority has allowed the prayer contained in I.A No. 510 of 2026. The directions issued by the Adjudicating Authority was well within the jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Authority in terms of Section 60(5) of the IBC.

Procedural History

The appeal arose from an order dated 21.07.2026 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal in I.A./510(AHM)2026 in CP (IB) No. 199 of 2025.

Acts & Sections

  • Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016: Section 60(5)
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Arbitral Award in Leave and Licence Dispute — Liquidated Damages Upheld for Early Termination During Lock-in Period. The court held that the arbitrator's interpretation of the lock-in clause and awar...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Quashing Petition in Section 377 IPC Case Despite Settlement. Court Refuses to Declare Section 377 Unconstitutional as Issue Pending Before Supreme Court and Binding Precedent Upholds Its Validity.