National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Dismisses Company Appeal Challenging Liquidator's Authority. The Tribunal affirmed that challenges to the termination of agreements are permissible under Section 33(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, without affecting the Appellant's rights.

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

Case Note & Summary

The case involved a Company Appeal filed by M/s. Sri Brindhavan Brick Works against M/s. DiMax Restructuring Private Limited concerning the termination of a Joint Development Agreement and General Power of Attorney related to the Manapakkam Project. The appeal was marked defective initially but was rectified, and a delay in refiling was condoned. The Appellant challenged an order dated 10.02.2026, which allowed the Liquidator to seek approval to initiate civil proceedings against the Appellant for the termination of the agreements. The Appellant contended that allowing such proceedings would adversely affect ongoing appeals concerning the same project. The Tribunal analyzed the provisions of Section 33(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, which permits such challenges in civil court, emphasizing that the validity of the termination would not impact the Appellant's rights in the ongoing Company Appeal. Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, affirming the Liquidator's authority to pursue the matter in civil court without prejudice to the Appellant's rights.

Headnote

A) Insolvency Law - Liquidator's Authority - Challenge to Termination of Agreements - Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 33(5) - The Appellant sought to challenge the termination of the Joint Development Agreement and General Power of Attorney in civil court, arguing it would affect ongoing proceedings. The Tribunal held that such challenges are permissible under the Code, and the rights of the Appellant remain unaffected, thus dismissing the appeal (Paras 6-7).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the liquidator was permitted to challenge the termination of the Joint Development Agreement and General Power of Attorney in a civil court under Section 33(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Tribunal dismissed the Company Appeal, affirming the Liquidator's authority to challenge the termination of the agreements in civil court under Section 33(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Law Points

  • Insolvency proceedings
  • Liquidator's authority
  • Condonation of delay
  • Joint Development Agreement
  • Civil Court jurisdiction
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2026 LawText (NCLAT) (06) 26

Comp App (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 275 /2026

2026-06-09

Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma, Jatindranath Swain

Mr. E. Om Prakash, Ms. A. Rithikha

M/s. Sri Brindhavan Brick Works

M/s. DiMax Restructuring Private Limited

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

Nature of Litigation

Company Appeal challenging the authority of the Liquidator to initiate civil proceedings.

Remedy Sought

The Appellant sought to prevent the Liquidator from challenging the termination of agreements in civil court.

Filing Reason

The appeal was filed against an order allowing the Liquidator to seek approval for civil proceedings.

Previous Decisions

The matter was previously under consideration in other appeals related to the same project.

Issues

Whether the Liquidator can challenge the termination of agreements in civil court Impact of such challenges on ongoing proceedings

Submissions/Arguments

The Appellant argued that allowing civil proceedings would adversely affect ongoing appeals. The Respondent contended that the challenge is permissible under the Code and does not affect the Appellant's rights.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal held that the Liquidator's authority to initiate civil proceedings under Section 33(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, is valid and does not infringe upon the rights of the Appellant in the ongoing Company Appeal.

Judgment Excerpts

The Company Appeal is marked as defective. The delay would stand condoned. The relief sought in the IA was modulated to the following effect: Grant leave and prior approval under Section 33(5).

Procedural History

The appeal was initially marked defective, which was rectified, and a delay in refiling was condoned before the merits were heard.

Acts & Sections

  • Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code: 33(5)
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Upholds Life Conviction for Murder of Uncle in Family Dispute — Evidence of Last Seen and Motive Sufficient. Accused convicted under Section 302 IPC for killing his uncle with a stick after a quarrel over separate residence.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Upholds Conviction Under Section 138 NI Act for Dishonour of Cheques Issued in Discharge of Liability — Service of Notice by Registered Post Deemed Sufficient Despite Return as Undelivered.