National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Dismisses Appeal of Ex-Resolution Professional in Insolvency Proceedings — No Adverse Remarks Found. The Tribunal clarified that the duties of the Resolution Professional were highlighted and the lack of evidence was attributed to the Suspended Director.

Tribunals: National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Bench: NEW DELHI
  • 4
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The appeal was filed by the erstwhile Resolution Professional of Maya Construction Pvt. Ltd., challenging certain observations made by the Learned Adjudicating Authority in a judgment dated 08.07.2026. The Appellant sought to expunge remarks from the judgment that suggested it was the Appellant's duty to provide cogent material regarding SARFAESI recoveries and the financial position of the Corporate Debtor. The Tribunal noted that the observations were made in the context of a claim by the Suspended Director regarding recoveries made by the Financial Creditor under the SARFAESI Act, which were not reflected in the admitted claim. The Tribunal emphasized that the Resolution Professional has a statutory obligation to present accurate financial information to the Committee of Creditors and the Tribunal. However, it clarified that the lack of evidence was attributed to the Suspended Director, not the Appellant. Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, stating that the observations made were not adverse to the Appellant and reaffirmed the duties of the Resolution Professional without imposing any costs.

Headnote

A) Insolvency Law - Duties of Resolution Professional - Statutory Obligations - Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Sections 18, 25 - The Tribunal highlighted the duties of the Resolution Professional to present the correct financial position of the Corporate Debtor. It was noted that no cogent material was provided by either party regarding SARFAESI recoveries, which the Tribunal deemed necessary for assessing the financial claims. Held that the observations were not adverse to the Appellant (Paras 2-4).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the observations made by the Learned Adjudicating Authority were adverse to the Appellant.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, stating that the observations made by the Learned Adjudicating Authority were not adverse to the Appellant and reaffirmed the duties of the Resolution Professional without imposing any costs.

Law Points

  • Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code
  • duties of Resolution Professional
  • SARFAESI Act
  • financial claims
  • Committee of Creditors
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2026 LawText (NCLAT) (08) 22

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1378 of 2026

2026-08-07

Justice Mohammad Faiz Alam Khan, Arun Baroka

Mr. Pratik Thakkar

Dharmendra Dhelariya

Rajendra Prasad Jhedu

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

Nature of Litigation

Appeal against observations made in insolvency proceedings

Remedy Sought

Expunging remarks against the Appellant

Filing Reason

Challenging adverse observations regarding financial disclosures

Issues

Whether the observations were adverse to the Appellant Duties of the Resolution Professional regarding financial disclosures

Submissions/Arguments

The Appellant argued that the remarks were adverse and should be expunged. The Tribunal noted the lack of evidence was due to the Suspended Director's failure to substantiate claims.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal clarified that the duties of the Resolution Professional include presenting accurate financial information, and the lack of evidence was attributed to the Suspended Director.

Judgment Excerpts

The instant appeal has been preferred by the erstwhile Resolution Professional of M/s. Maya Construction Company Pvt. Ltd. We have considered the submissions made by Learned Counsel for the Appellant and have also perused the observation.

Procedural History

The appeal was filed against the judgment dated 08.07.2026 in Interlocutory Application (Plan) No. 6 of 2026 in Company Petition (IB) No. 190/NCLT/AHM/2023.

Acts & Sections

  • Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016: 18, 25
  • SARFAESI Act:
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Upholds Seniority Determination in Health Service Case — Clarifies Basis for Seniority in Himachal Pradesh Health Service.
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Restores Conviction in Dowry Death Case — Upholds Trial Court's Findings.