Case Note & Summary
The appeals were filed by Debashis Nanda against an order dated 14.05.2026 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), New Delhi. The NCLT had expressed dissatisfaction with the conduct of the Resolution Professional (RP) due to their non-appearance during a hearing. The Appellant's counsel argued that the RP had appeared on previous occasions and that the absence on the specific date should not lead to adverse remarks. The NCLAT considered the explanation provided by the Appellant and found no valid reason to keep the appeal pending. It ruled that the NCLT's observation regarding the RP's conduct should not be taken into account for any actions against the Appellant. Consequently, all appeals were disposed of without issuing notice to the Respondents, allowing them the liberty to seek modification of the order if aggrieved. No costs were imposed.
Headnote
A) Company Law - Resolution Professional Conduct - Adverse Observations - Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - The NCLT's observation regarding the unsatisfactory conduct of the RP based solely on non-appearance was deemed insufficient to warrant adverse actions. The NCLAT held that the explanation provided by the Appellant for the RP's absence was satisfactory, thus directing that the adverse observations should not influence any actions against the Appellant (Paras 1-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the non-appearance of the Resolution Professional (RP) warranted adverse observations by the NCLT.
Final Decision
The NCLAT disposed of the appeals, ruling that the NCLT's adverse observations regarding the RP's conduct should not be considered in any actions against the Appellant. The court did not issue notice to the Respondents and allowed them to seek modification if aggrieved.
Law Points
- Non-appearance of RP
- Adverse observations
- Appeal disposal
