National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Upholds NCLT Order on Transaction Collapsing Applications — Consent Requirement Affirmed.

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

Case Note & Summary

The appeals were filed by Infrastructure Leasing & Financial Services Ltd. (IL&FS) against the order dated 13.04.2026 of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), which dismissed CA No. 226/2025 and allowed CA No. 368/2025 and CA No. 99/2025. The background involved IL&FS, registered as a core investment company with the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), and its subsidiary IL&FS Financial Services Ltd. (IFIN), which was directed by RBI to reduce exposure to group companies. The Union of India filed a petition under Sections 241 & 242 of the Companies Act, 2013, alleging oppression and mismanagement. The NCLT ordered a reconstitution of IL&FS's board and later found that transactions involving loans to group companies were fraudulent. The appeals arose from the NCLT's interpretation that consent was necessary for collapsing transactions, which IL&FS contested. The court analyzed whether the NCLT correctly construed the earlier order regarding consent and the implications of RBI's directions. Ultimately, the Tribunal held that the NCLT had misinterpreted the requirement for consent, allowing the appeals to proceed for further examination of the transactions in question.

Headnote

A) Company Law - Oppression and Mismanagement - Consent Requirement for Collapsing Transactions - Companies Act, 2013, Sections 241, 242 - NCLT held that mutual agreement was a mandatory precondition for collapsing transactions, and without consent from SIFL, the application could not be allowed. The Tribunal found that the interpretation of the NCLT was incorrect as it misconstrued the earlier order regarding the necessity of consent for collapsing transactions (Paras 5.23-5.24).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether consent is mandatory for collapsing transactions under Sections 241 & 242 of the Companies Act, 2013.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Tribunal held that the NCLT had misconstrued the order dated 16.01.2025 regarding the necessity of consent for collapsing transactions, allowing the appeals to proceed for further examination.

Law Points

  • Companies Act
  • 2013
  • Sections 241
  • 242
  • Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process
  • RBI Act
  • 1934
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2026 LawText (NCLAT) (06) 52

Company Appeal (AT) No. 143 – 145 of 2026

2026-04-13

Ashok Bhushan

Mr. Ramji Srinivasan, Mr. Arun Kathpalia, Mr. Gaurav Joshi, Mr. Anuj Lakhotiya

Infrastructure Leasing & Financial Services Ltd.

Union of India & Ors.

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

Nature of Litigation

Appeal against NCLT order regarding transaction collapsing applications.

Remedy Sought

IL&FS sought to collapse certain transactions deemed fraudulent.

Filing Reason

Challenging the NCLT's interpretation of consent requirements for collapsing transactions.

Previous Decisions

NCLT had previously ruled on the necessity of consent for collapsing transactions.

Issues

Whether consent is mandatory for collapsing transactions under Sections 241 & 242. Whether the NCLT correctly interpreted the earlier order regarding consent.

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant argued that NCLT misinterpreted the requirement of consent for collapsing transactions. Respondent contended that NCLT correctly followed the Tribunal's earlier directions regarding consent.

Ratio Decidendi

The NCLT's interpretation of consent as a mandatory precondition for collapsing transactions was incorrect; the Tribunal clarified that transactions could be examined without consent if deemed fraudulent.

Judgment Excerpts

NCLT held that mutual agreement was a mandatory precondition for the collapsing of any transaction. The NCLT has misconstrued the order dated 16.01.2025 by holding that collapsing is permissible only where the parties have already agreed.

Procedural History

The appeals arose from the NCLT's order dated 13.04.2026, which dismissed CA No. 226/2025 and allowed CA No. 368/2025 and CA No. 99/2025.

Acts & Sections

  • Companies Act, 2013: 241, 242
  • Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934:
  • Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016:
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Upholds Vendor in Contract Forfeiture Case Under Section 74 of Indian Contract Act; Earnest Money Forfeiture Subject to Reasonable Compensation. Buyer's Breach of Contract Led to Forfeiture of Only Rs 1,000 Earnest Money, Not Entire Rs ...
Related Judgement
High Court Madras High Court Allows Quashing of Criminal Proceedings in Assault Case Due to Compromise Between Neighbors. The court held that where the dispute is personal and parties have amicably settled, the High Court has inherent power under Section 528 BN...