NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Upholds Order Against Suspended Director in Insolvency Proceedings Due to Non-Cooperation. Non-Compliance with Document Requests Justified Costs Imposed under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

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

Case Note & Summary

The case involved an appeal by the Suspended Director of KSL & Industries Ltd. against an order of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) regarding non-cooperation during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). The CIRP was initiated on 06.09.2019, and Kiran Shah was appointed as the Resolution Professional (RP) on 28.07.2020. The Appellant claimed to have cooperated fully, providing numerous documents, but the RP alleged incomplete submissions, leading to an application under Section 19(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The NCLT found the Appellant's cooperation lacking and imposed costs for non-compliance. The Appellant contended that the documents were supplied and that the imposition of costs was unwarranted. The Tribunal analyzed the obligations under Section 19(2) and concluded that the Appellant had not fully complied with the requests for documents, justifying the costs imposed. The appeal was dismissed, and the NCLT's order was upheld, emphasizing that the duty to cooperate is continuous and that partial compliance does not equate to full compliance.

Headnote

A) Insolvency Law - Non-Cooperation - Imposition of Costs - Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 19(2) - The Appellant's failure to provide necessary documents during the CIRP led to the imposition of costs by the Adjudicating Authority. The court held that the duty to cooperate is ongoing and partial compliance does not suffice, justifying the costs imposed (Paras 25-26).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the imposition of costs on the Appellant for non-cooperation during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) was justified.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The appeal was dismissed, and the impugned order dated 11.06.2024 was upheld. The Tribunal found that the Appellant did not fully cooperate with the RP, justifying the imposition of costs of Rs. 25,000.

Law Points

  • Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code
  • 2016
  • Section 19(2)
  • Section 60(5)
  • NCLT Rules
  • non-cooperation
  • imposition of costs
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2026 LawText (NCLAT) (10) 54

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1766 of 2024

2026-10-30

Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma, Arun Baroka

Mr. K.D. Sharma

N arayan R amchandra G humatkar

KIRAN SHAH

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

Nature of Litigation

Appeal against an order of the NCLT regarding non-cooperation during CIRP.

Remedy Sought

The Appellant sought to overturn the NCLT's order imposing costs.

Filing Reason

The Appellant claimed to have fully cooperated with the RP during the CIRP.

Previous Decisions

The NCLT found the Appellant non-compliant and imposed costs.

Issues

Whether the imposition of costs for non-cooperation was justified. Whether the Appellant had fully complied with the document requests.

Submissions/Arguments

The Appellant argued that all required documents were supplied and that the imposition of costs was unwarranted. The Respondent contended that the Appellant failed to provide necessary documents, justifying the costs imposed.

Ratio Decidendi

The duty to cooperate under Section 19(1) of the I&B Code is ongoing, and partial compliance does not equate to full compliance. The imposition of costs for non-cooperation is permissible under Section 60(5) of the Code.

Judgment Excerpts

The duty to cooperate under Section 19(1) is a continuing one, and partial compliance is not full compliance. The Appellant's failure to provide necessary documents during the CIRP led to the imposition of costs by the Adjudicating Authority.

Procedural History

The appeal arose from an order dated 11.06.2024 passed by the NCLT in I.A. No. 350 of 2021, which was filed under Section 19(2) of the I&B Code.

Acts & Sections

  • Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016: Section 19(2), Section 60(5)
  • NCLT Rules, 2016: Rule 11
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Expunges Adverse Remarks Against Judge in Criminal Appeal — Remarks Found Unwarranted.
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Dismisses Appellants in Property Dispute Case Allowing Construction Subject to Suit Outcome. Court emphasized that constructions already commenced cannot be halted at this stage, and any new interests must be subject to the suit's final...