Case Note & Summary
The appeal was filed against an order of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) dated 01.10.2026, which did not take up the appellant's application for the replacement of the Resolution Professional (RP). The appellant, Vikas Katiyar, contended that the issue had been pending since 06.08.2025, and despite a prior application (I.A No. 3491 of 2026) where it was noted that 33% of financial creditors requested the replacement, the agenda was not considered by the Committee of Creditors (CoC). The NCLT had directed the appellant to make a representation to the Authorised Representative (AR), which he did, but no action was taken by the RP. Consequently, the appellant filed I.A No. 4741 of 2026, which was also postponed. The NCLAT, while disposing of the appeal, requested the NCLT to hear the application on 04.11.2026 and to resolve the matter expeditiously. The court emphasized the importance of addressing such applications promptly to facilitate the insolvency resolution process.
Headnote
A) Insolvency Law - Replacement of Resolution Professional - Application for Replacement - Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - The appellant sought the replacement of the Resolution Professional due to inaction despite requests from financial creditors. The Tribunal directed the NCLT to hear the application on a specified date and dispose of it expeditiously after hearing the parties. Held that timely consideration of such applications is essential for the resolution process (Paras 1-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the NCLT should have taken up the application for the replacement of the Resolution Professional.
Final Decision
The NCLAT disposed of the appeal, directing the NCLT to hear the application on 04.11.2026 and to resolve it expeditiously after hearing the parties.
Law Points
- Replacement of Resolution Professional
- Financial Creditors' Rights
- NCLT Procedure
Case Details
2026 LawText (NCLAT) (10) 27
Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 2071 of 2026
Justice Yogesh Khanna, Barun Mitra, Ajai Das Mehrotra
Mr. Vijay Kasana, Mr. Vaibhav Sharma, Mr. Sumant Batra, Ms. Anuja Pethia, Mr. Rishabh Govila, Mr. Sarthak Bhandari, Ms. Riya Kaur Arora
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Appeal against NCLT order regarding the replacement of the Resolution Professional.
Remedy Sought
Appellant sought to expedite the hearing of the application for the replacement of the RP.
Filing Reason
The application was filed due to inaction by the RP despite requests from financial creditors.
Previous Decisions
NCLT had previously directed the appellant to make a representation to the AR, which was not acted upon.
Issues
Whether the NCLT should have taken up the application for the replacement of the Resolution Professional.
Submissions/Arguments
The appellant argued that the RP was not replaced despite requests from financial creditors.
The respondents contended that the proper procedure was not followed for the replacement.
Ratio Decidendi
The court emphasized the necessity for timely consideration of applications regarding the replacement of the Resolution Professional to ensure the effective resolution of insolvency matters.
Judgment Excerpts
This appeal is filed against an impugned order dated 01.10.2026
The Applicant will make a representation to AR within three days from today and the AR will consider and dispose of the same within four days thereafter.
We dispose of this appeal while requesting the Ld. NCLT to hear the application on 04.11.2026.
Procedural History
The appeal was filed against the NCLT's order dated 01.10.2026, which did not take up the appellant's application for the replacement of the RP. The appellant had previously filed I.A No. 3491 of 2026 regarding the same issue.
Acts & Sections
- Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code:
