National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Dismisses Appeal as Infructuous Due to Participation in Resolution Process. Appeal Challenged Admission to CIRP but Became Successful Resolution Applicant, Rendering Appeal Moot.

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

Case Note & Summary

The case involved an appeal before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal concerning the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) of Kumarakom Aqua Serene Private Limited. The appellant, V. K. Rajeev, was a suspended director of the company and had previously challenged the order admitting the company to CIRP under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. Despite his challenge, the appellant participated in the resolution process and ultimately became the Successful Resolution Applicant. During the proceedings, the appellant did not file any vakalath and was not represented for the second consecutive time. The learned counsel for the respondent highlighted the appellant's participation in the resolution process, which led the tribunal to appreciate the assistance provided by the respondent's counsel. Consequently, the tribunal dismissed the appeal as infructuous, indicating that the appellant's actions rendered the appeal moot. The decision underscored the importance of active participation in the resolution process and the implications of becoming the Successful Resolution Applicant on the appeal's viability.

Headnote

A) Corporate Law - Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process - Dismissal of Appeal - Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 7 - The appellant, a suspended director, challenged the admission of the Corporate Debtor to CIRP but participated in the resolution process and became the Successful Resolution Applicant. The tribunal dismissed the appeal as infructuous due to the appellant's participation in the process, which negated the basis for the appeal. Held that the appeal was no longer maintainable (Paras 2-3).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the appeal challenging the admission of the Corporate Debtor to Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) should be dismissed as infructuous.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The tribunal dismissed the appeal as infructuous, noting that the appellant's participation in the resolution process negated the basis for the appeal.

Law Points

  • Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process
  • Successful Resolution Applicant
  • Infructuous Appeal
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2026 LawText (NCLAT) (07) 115

Comp. App. (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 444/2025

2026-07-30

Justice N. Seshasayee, Jatindranath Swain

Mr. Akhil Suresh, Mr. Jerin Asher Sojan

V. K. Rajeev

Kerala State Industrial Development Corporation Limited, Mr. P T Joy

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

Nature of Litigation

Appeal against the admission of a corporate debtor to CIRP.

Remedy Sought

Appellant sought to challenge the order admitting the corporate debtor to CIRP.

Filing Reason

The appellant challenged the admission order under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.

Issues

Whether the appeal should be dismissed as infructuous due to the appellant's participation in the resolution process.

Submissions/Arguments

The appellant did not appear or file any vakalath. The respondent's counsel highlighted the appellant's participation as Successful Resolution Applicant.

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was rendered infructuous due to the appellant's participation in the resolution process and becoming the Successful Resolution Applicant, which negated the grounds for challenging the admission to CIRP.

Judgment Excerpts

The appellant is the suspended director of MSME and even though he challenged the order admitting the Corporate Debtor to CIRP under Section 7, he did participate in the resolution process and eventually became the Successful Resolution Applicant himself. We recorded the statement of the Learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1 and dismiss the appeal as having become infructuous.

Procedural History

The appellant filed an appeal challenging the admission of the corporate debtor to CIRP under Section 7. The appellant did not appear for the hearing on two successive occasions.

Acts & Sections

  • Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code: Section 7
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Revision Under Section 115 CPC Due to Alternate Remedy Under Maharashtra Rent Control Act. Order rejecting plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC affects substantive rights and is revisable under Section 34(4) of the MRC Ac...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows Appeal Against High Court Order on Employment Exemption. The respondent's failure to appear for the written test and prolonged absence from duty negated any legal right to appointment under the applicable government order.