NCLAT Sets Aside Adverse Remarks Against Resolution Professional in Corporate Insolvency Proceedings Due to Inadvertent Lapse. The Tribunal found that the minor lapse did not affect the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process and should not have been reported to the IBBI.

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

Case Note & Summary

The appeal was filed by Amit Chandrashekhar Poddar, the Resolution Professional of Khadkeshwar Hatcheries Limited, against an order from the NCLT, Mumbai Bench, which contained adverse remarks regarding his conduct. The NCLT had noted that the Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) of Rs. 10 Lakhs was not encashed in a timely manner, leading to concerns about the Resolution Professional's actions. The appellant argued that the delay was due to the Director of the PRA/SRA being out of the country and that the failure to deposit the Demand Draft was an inadvertent mistake. The Tribunal reviewed the circumstances surrounding the delay, including the approval of the resolution plan by the Committee of Creditors (CoC) and concluded that the lapse was minor and did not affect the CIRP process. The Tribunal ultimately set aside the adverse remarks made by the NCLT, stating that they were unwarranted and should not have been reported to the IBBI, as they did not constitute a material irregularity. The appeal was disposed of without costs.

Headnote

A) Corporate Law - Resolution Professional Conduct - Adverse Remarks - Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section Not Mentioned - The Tribunal found the lapse of the Resolution Professional in not encashing the Demand Draft for EMD to be inadvertent and not material enough to vitiate the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). The Tribunal set aside the adverse remarks made by the Adjudicating Authority, emphasizing that the lapse did not delay the CIRP process and should not have been reported to the IBBI (Paras 10-12).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the adverse remarks made by the Adjudicating Authority against the Resolution Professional were justified and warranted reporting to the IBBI.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Tribunal set aside the adverse remarks recorded against the Appellant/Resolution Professional in Para No. 15 of the impugned order, stating that the lapse was minor and inadvertent, and did not warrant reporting to the IBBI. The appeal was disposed of in the terms mentioned in the judgment without costs.

Law Points

  • Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process
  • Resolution Professional conduct
  • Adjudicating Authority observations
  • IBBI reporting
  • inadvertent lapses
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2026 LawText (NCLAT) (10) 43

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1842 of 2026

2026-10-27

Justice Mohammad Faiz Alam Khan, Naresh Salecha

Mr. Krishnendu Datta, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Asav Rajan, Mr. Devang Shrotriya, Mr. Kashish Chadha, Mr. Aditya Shah, Mr. Raghav Bansal, Mr. Pranay Duggal, Ms. Niharika Sharma

Amit Chandrashekhar Poddar

Committee of Creditors of Khadkeshwar Hatcheries Limited

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

Nature of Litigation

Appeal against adverse remarks made by the NCLT regarding the conduct of the Resolution Professional.

Remedy Sought

The appellant sought to set aside the adverse remarks made by the NCLT.

Filing Reason

The adverse remarks were deemed unjustified and not material to the CIRP process.

Previous Decisions

The NCLT had approved the resolution plan despite the remarks.

Issues

Justification of adverse remarks against the Resolution Professional Impact of the lapse on the CIRP process

Submissions/Arguments

The lapse was inadvertent and did not affect the CIRP process. The adverse remarks should not have been reported to the IBBI.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal held that minor inadvertent lapses by the Resolution Professional do not constitute material irregularities that would affect the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process.

Judgment Excerpts

The explanation given by the RP that the Demand Draft was not encashed inadvertently does not inspire confidence of this Tribunal. The lapse was inadvertently committed, we are not in agreement with the observations made by the learned Adjudicating Authority.

Procedural History

The appeal was filed against the NCLT's order dated 27.08.2026, which contained adverse remarks regarding the conduct of the Resolution Professional.

Acts & Sections

  • Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code:
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Bail Under Section 437(6) CrPC for Trial Delay Beyond 60 Days — Accused Entitled to Default Bail Despite Seriousness of Offence. The court held that Section 437(6) CrPC is mandatory and confers a right to bail if trial is n...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Partially Allows Appeal in IPC Murder Case — Acquits on Murder Charges, Convicts for Causing Hurt. The court found insufficient evidence to establish the involvement of the appellants in the murder of Anil and Jatu, leading to their a...