NCLT's Reference To IBBI Order After Reserving Judgment Does Not Violate Natural Justice If RP Does Not Contest Order: NCLAT New Delhi

The CIRP of the corporate debtor commenced with the appointment of an IRP, who was later confirmed as the RP. Subsequently, appellant replaced the RP. Further, ex-promoter and director of the corporate debtor filed an application to replace appellant. The adjudicating authority allowed the application by appointing new RP.

Contention of the Parties

The appellant restricted its contention to expunging certain remarks in the impugned order, and it didn't contend for setting aside the order. It also submitted that the adjudicating authority erred in observing that the appellant failed to pursue the I.A. No. 872 of 2025. However, the appellant filed the application on time, corrected defects, and it was listed before the tribunal.

Appellant submitted that NCLT assumed that it ignored the notice; however, the notice was never served to him personally, and he came to know about it only through the inspection. Further, it pointed out that the NCLT has referred to the IBBI order dated 24.06.2025, but the appellant didn't get the chance to respond to it, as the order was reserved prior to issuance of IBBI order.

Per contra, the respondent submitted that the appellant has made contradictory claims by previously admitting that he received the notice on the same day and later claiming that he discovered this through inspection. Also, even though the IBBI order was passed post reserving the matter, it was forwarded officially to the tribunal and rightly taken note of.

Observations of the NCLAT

The tribunal observed that the appellant letter dated 04.07.2023 proved that he was aware of the notice, and it falsifies the stand of the appellant and also raises a question about his integrity. The tribunal also noted that the appellant was negligent of his case, as he only followed the case from the website of the tribunal; however, it was expected from him to have pursued the application diligently so that it could be listed for orders.

Considering the submission of the appellant with regard to IBBI, the bench noted that the appellant has not contended the IBBI order. And, since a fact is not denied, it hardly matters if the opportunity of hearing was given to the appellant or not.

Hence, the bench observed that the tribunal committed no error in making the alleged observations while passing the order.

Case Name: Pankaj Majithia, RP of Shree Ram Urban Infrastructure Ltd. vs. Vikas Kasliwal & Ors.

Case No.: Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 958 of 2025

Bench: Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Member-Judicial) and Naresh Salecha (Member-Technical),

Order Date: 03.09.2025

Click Here To Read/Download The Order