National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Dismisses Appeal Against Resolution Professional's Order — No Merit Found. The court found that the outstanding dues would be dealt with under the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Tribunals: National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Bench: NEW DELHI
  • 0
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The appeal was filed by the appellant under section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, challenging an order from the National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, which disposed of the appellant's application for payment of dues during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). The appellant, Ravi Dhiman, was the owner of licensed premises and had entered into a Leave and License Agreement with the corporate debtor, which had stopped paying dues from March and May 2023. The appellant sought payment of outstanding dues amounting to Rs. 52,16,485 for the CIRP period and ongoing dues until possession was handed over. The Resolution Professional contended that the appeal concealed material facts and that the claims should be addressed under the IBC framework. The adjudicating authority noted that the property had been handed over to the appellant and that the outstanding dues would be considered according to law. The court found no illegality in the adjudicating authority's order and dismissed the appeal, stating that the appellant's claims would be handled under the provisions of the IBC. The decision emphasized the importance of following the established legal framework for creditor claims during insolvency proceedings.

Headnote

A) Insolvency Law - CIRP Costs - Liability of Resolution Professional - Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 61 - The appellant claimed outstanding dues for the period of CIRP, asserting that the Resolution Professional was in possession of the premises. The court held that the outstanding dues would be dealt with in accordance with law, affirming the adjudicating authority's discretion in such matters (Paras 21-22).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the Resolution Professional is liable to pay the outstanding dues for the licensed premises during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The appeal was dismissed as it lacked merit, with the court affirming that the outstanding dues would be dealt with in accordance with law.

Law Points

  • Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code
  • 2016
  • CIRP costs
  • possession of premises
  • adjudicating authority's discretion
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2026 LawText (NCLAT) (10) 15

CA (AT) (Ins) No. 1643 of 2026

2026-10-14

Justice Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan, Naresh Salecha

Mr. Setu Niket, Ms. Esha Mazumdar, Mr. Harshit Khare, Mr. Prafful Saini, Mr. Ayuj Agrawal, Mr. Bijesh Gupta

Ravi Dhiman

Ritu Rastogi/Resolution Professional

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

Nature of Litigation

Appeal against the order of the National Company Law Tribunal regarding payment of dues during CIRP.

Remedy Sought

Appellant sought payment of outstanding dues and possession of licensed premises.

Filing Reason

Corporate debtor stopped paying dues during the CIRP.

Previous Decisions

The adjudicating authority disposed of the application stating that outstanding dues would be considered according to law.

Issues

Liability of Resolution Professional for CIRP costs Possession of licensed premises during CIRP

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant claimed outstanding dues and possession of premises. Resolution Professional argued that the appeal concealed material facts.

Ratio Decidendi

The court upheld the adjudicating authority's discretion in handling claims during the CIRP under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, emphasizing that outstanding dues would be resolved according to legal provisions.

Judgment Excerpts

The outstanding rental dues of the appellant shall be considered and dealt with in accordance with law. We do not find any illegality in this observation of the Adjudicating Authority.

Procedural History

The appellant filed I.A. No. 5866/2025 seeking payment of dues and possession of premises, which was disposed of by the adjudicating authority.

Acts & Sections

  • Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016: Section 61, Section 14
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Dismisses Special Leave Petition Against High Court Refusal to Stay Electricity Bill Recovery. Pendency Before BIFR Under SICA Does Not Bar Disconnection for Default in Payment of Electricity Dues Despite Instalment Agreement.
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Directs Regularisation of Casual Labourers in Telecommunications and Postal Departments. Court mandates timely absorption and equal treatment for casual labourers under the Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status) Regulation Scheme,...