AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Per Justice N. Seshasayee, Member (Judicial)
This appeal is preferred by the CD which challenges the Order of the Adjudicating Authority admitting the CD to the CIRP. The appeal was filed in the name of the CD.
Placing reliance on the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nitendra Kumar Tomar, Suspended Director, Ambro Asia Private Limited Vs. Unox S.P.A. and another [Civil Appeal No.3607 of 2026], the learned Counsel for the respondent submitted the appeal as framed is not maintainable. In the fitness of things, the appeal should have been filed by the suspended directors of the CD and not by the CD, since once the CD is admitted to CIRP, its Board stands suspended. Secondly, the affidavit filed along with the appeal shows that the deponent thereof has executed it in Mumbai but it was seen notarized in Gurugram and there is nothing in that affidavit to indicate that the deponent had travelled to Gurugram and executed it before the notary. Thirdly, for instituting this appeal, the appellant has filed a board resolution which is dated after the date of the impugned Order. This is plainly incompetent, since the board appears to be in delirium, blissfully unaware of the consequences of an Order initiating a CIRP. Taking cumulatively and reading them on the plane of law declared in Nitendra Kumar Tomar judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the appeal cannot be entertained.
In response, the learned Counsel for the appellant submitted the CD has already been drawn into CIRP vide an Order in C.P.(IB) 398 of 2023, dated 06.12.2023, and it was reversed by this Tribunal in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 22 of 2024 dated 13.03.2024, but that judgement of the NCLAT was reversed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in C.A.12261 of 2024 vide judgement dated 10.12.2025 and confirmed the Order of the Adjudicating Authority. The order admitting CD to CIRP in C.P.38 of 2023 now having been restored, the subsequent Order of the Adjudicating Authority dated 26.08.2025 which is sought to be impugned in this appeal cannot be sustained since there can be no two orders for commencing insolvency resolution process for the same CD.
There is merit on the submissions of both the parties. Turning to the maintainability of the appeal, very evidently the appeal cannot be maintained for the manner it is framed is not consistent with law. Now, even if the appeal if found maintainable, yet in view of the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in C.A.12261 of 2024, it would have become infructuous. So far as the respondent is concerned, irrespective of the Order that it has secured against CD for commencing a CIRP against it, given the fact that there has already commenced another CIRP against the CD, it may now have to prefer a claim merely. But then that is a different issue. For the present we hold that the appeal is not maintainable.
To conclude, we dismiss the appeal as not maintainable. No costs.
I.A. No.5993 of 2025 is also closed.