National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Dismisses Appeal Against Liquidation Order — Appellant's Plan Found Non-Compliant. The court upheld the liquidation order as no resolution plan was approved during the CIRP, allowing the Appellant to submit a scheme under Regulation 2B of the IBC.

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

Case Note & Summary

The appeal was filed against an order dated 10.04.2026, which directed the liquidation of the corporate debtor. The Appellant, a resolution applicant and promoter, submitted a plan alongside three other applicants. However, the Committee of Creditors (CoC) rejected the plans from two other applicants and found the Appellant's plan non-compliant during the 14th CoC meeting. The Appellant contended that other applicants were given additional time to submit addendums, while he was not afforded the same opportunity. The court noted that since no resolution plan was approved during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP), the only consequence was liquidation, which the Adjudicating Authority rightly directed. Under Regulation 2B of the IBBI Liquidation Process Regulations, the Appellant was permitted to submit a scheme within 90 days from the liquidation order. The Appellant indicated an intention to submit a scheme within two weeks, and the court directed that the liquidator would present this scheme to the creditors for consideration. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.

Headnote

A) Insolvency Law - Liquidation Process - Compliance of Resolution Plans - Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 33 - The Appellant's resolution plan was deemed non-compliant, leading to the Adjudicating Authority's order for liquidation. The court held that since no plan was approved during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP), liquidation was the only viable outcome (Paras 2-4).

B) Insolvency Law - Eligibility to Submit Scheme - Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Regulation 2B - The Appellant, having submitted a resolution plan, was eligible to propose a scheme within 90 days of the liquidation order. The court allowed the Appellant to submit a scheme to the liquidator for consideration (Paras 5-7).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the Appellant was given a fair opportunity to comply with the resolution plan requirements and the implications of the liquidation order.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The appeal was dismissed, allowing the Appellant to submit a scheme within two weeks for consideration by the liquidator.

Law Points

  • Liquidation process
  • Corporate insolvency resolution
  • Eligibility to submit scheme
  • Compromise or arrangement under Companies Act
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2026 LawText (NCLAT) (05) 164

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 958 of 2026 & I.A. No. 3818 of 2026

2026-05-25

Justice Ashok Bhushan, Mr. Barun Mitra

Mr. Sumesh Dhawan, Mr. Jaskarna S. Bhatia, Mr. Shaurya Shyam, Ms. Varsha, Khyati Khemka, Sagar Thakkar, Kavya Tekkriwal, Ms. Ipshita Das, Mr. Rajesh Kumar Agrawal, Ms. Pooja Agrawal, Mohd. Moonis Abbasi

Shalini Sarawgi

Small Industries Development Bank of India & Ors.

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

Nature of Litigation

Appeal against liquidation order

Remedy Sought

Appellant sought to challenge the liquidation order and submit a scheme

Filing Reason

Order directing liquidation was contested

Previous Decisions

The Adjudicating Authority allowed the liquidation based on non-compliance of the resolution plan

Issues

Fair opportunity for compliance with resolution plan Implications of liquidation order

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant argued lack of opportunity compared to other applicants Respondent maintained that liquidation was necessary due to non-compliance

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the non-compliance of the Appellant's resolution plan justified the liquidation order, while also allowing the Appellant the opportunity to propose a scheme under the relevant regulations.

Judgment Excerpts

The Appellant was one of the resolution applicant and promoter who has submitted a plan apart from the resolution plan by three other resolution applicants. The CoC has held various meetings and in the 15th CoC meeting rejected both resolution plans submitted by M/s Carbon Resources Private Limited and M/s Balmukund Sponge & Iron Private Limited.

Procedural History

The appeal was filed against the order of the Adjudicating Authority allowing the liquidation process.

Acts & Sections

  • Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016: Section 33
  • Companies Act, 2013: Section 230
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Reverses Conviction in Homicide Case Due to Insufficient Evidence. The court found the dying declaration unreliable and highlighted contradictions in witness testimonies.
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Strikes Down Section 13AA of Orissa Sales Tax Act as Unconstitutional Due to Legislative Overreach. The provision imposed tax on transactions exempt from sales tax, violating constitutional principles.