NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Dismisses Appeals of Resolution Professional in Personal Insolvency Case — Removal Upheld. Removal justified due to non-cooperation and failure to comply with NCLT orders.

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

Case Note & Summary

The case involved appeals filed by Kairav Anil Trivedi, the Resolution Professional (RP) for Jitendra Kikavat, a personal guarantor to Mahavir Roads and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., against orders from the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). The first appeal challenged an order directing the RP to convene a meeting of creditors, while the second appeal contested his removal as RP. The Appellant argued that his removal was illegal and that he was not obliged to call a meeting of creditors. The Respondents contended that the Appellant had failed to perform his duties, including submitting periodic reports and communicating with creditors. The NCLT had found the Appellant non-cooperative and had appointed a new RP, Prashant Jain, due to the Appellant's failure to comply with orders and his conduct during proceedings. The Appellate Tribunal found that the Appellant had concealed material facts regarding his removal and the decisions of the NCLT. Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed both appeals, stating that the Appellant, having been removed, had no standing to maintain the appeals, and vacated the interim order previously granted. No costs were imposed, and pending applications were disposed of.

Headnote

A) Insolvency Law - Removal of Resolution Professional - Justification for Removal - Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 114(3) - The Appellant was removed due to non-cooperation and failure to convene creditor meetings as directed by the Adjudicating Authority. The Tribunal upheld the removal, stating that the Appellant's conduct warranted a change in the Resolution Professional to ensure smooth insolvency proceedings. Held that the removal was justified (Paras 21-33).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the removal of the Appellant as Resolution Professional was justified and if the appeals could be maintained post-removal.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Appellate Tribunal dismissed both appeals, stating that the Appellant, having been removed, had no standing to maintain the appeals. The interim order dated 29.05.2026 was vacated, and no costs were imposed.

Law Points

  • Insolvency proceedings
  • removal of resolution professional
  • creditor meetings
  • concealment of facts
  • compliance with orders
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2026 LawText (NCLAT) (10) 5

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 828 of 2026 & Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1070 of 2026

2026-10-15

Justice Mohammad Faiz Alam Khan, Arun Baroka

Mr. Kairav Trivedi, Mr. Vijay Purohit, Mr. Pratik Jhaveri, Mr. Abhilash Gaur, Ms. Avani Bajpai, Ms. Mily Ghoshal, Mr. Karan Thackeray

Kairav Anil Trivedi

Bank of Baroda & Ors.

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

Nature of Litigation

Appeals against orders of the NCLT regarding the removal of a Resolution Professional and the convening of creditor meetings.

Remedy Sought

The Appellant sought to challenge his removal and the order directing the convening of a meeting of creditors.

Filing Reason

The Appellant contended that his removal was illegal and that he was not obliged to call a meeting of creditors.

Previous Decisions

The NCLT had previously directed the Appellant to convene a meeting of creditors and later removed him due to non-compliance.

Issues

Justification for the removal of the Resolution Professional Standing of the Appellant to maintain appeals post-removal

Submissions/Arguments

The Appellant argued that his removal was illegal and that he was not obliged to call a meeting of creditors. The Respondents contended that the Appellant failed to perform his duties and was non-cooperative.

Ratio Decidendi

The Appellant's removal as Resolution Professional was justified due to non-cooperation and failure to comply with NCLT orders, which warranted the appointment of a new Resolution Professional.

Judgment Excerpts

The Appellant was removed due to non-cooperation and failure to convene creditor meetings as directed by the Adjudicating Authority. The Tribunal upheld the removal, stating that the Appellant's conduct warranted a change in the Resolution Professional.

Procedural History

The Appellant filed Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 828 of 2026 challenging an order to convene a meeting of creditors and Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1070 of 2026 against his removal. The NCLT had previously directed the Appellant to convene a meeting and later removed him due to non-compliance.

Acts & Sections

  • Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code: Section 114(3)
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Upholds Merger of Religious Societies — Validity of Resolution Confirmed. The resolution for merger was held valid as the Synod had the authority to permit such a merger, and the High Court's ruling was overturned.
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows Appeal for CBI Investigation into Kidnapping Case — Ensures Fair Investigation. The Court found that the High Court's dismissal of the writ petition overlooked critical evidence and warranted a fresh investigation by the CBI.