Tribunals and CommissionsDivision Bench(2026) 04 NCLAT CK 1853

Rupal Manish Patel (Suspended Designated Partner of Keya Buildtech LLP) vs Punit Handa (RP of Keya Buildtech LLP) & Ors.

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal · Decided on 27 April 2026

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ashok Bhushan, J. · Barun Mitra
RESULT
Disposed of
CASE NUMBER
I.A. No. 3030 of 2026 in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 373 of 2026

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

11 paragraphs · 340 words

27.04.2026: I.A. No. 3030/2026

1.

This is an application filed by the appellant seeking prayers which are as follows:

a. Kindly stay further steps in pursuance of the Impugned Order dated 20.01.2025 passed by the Hon’ble National Company Law Tribunal at Ahmedabad in CP(IB)/247/7(AHM)/2025 till next date of hearing in Appeal i.e. 25.05.2026;

b. Direct no coercive steps be taken against the suspended partners of the Corporate Debtor;

c. Kindly exempt the personal appearance of the Applicant and R-2 before the Ld. NCLT Ahmedabad Bench;

Pass such other order or orders that this Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice and equity.

2.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in proceedings by the order passed in Section 7 application dated 20.01.2026, this appeal has been filed, where this Court has entertained the appeal and passed an order on 25.02.2026. It is submitted that Resolution Professional (RP) has filed application under Section 19(2) against the suspended director including the appellant where various directions have been issued. It is submitted that appellant has appeared through counsel before the adjudicating authority, however, adjudicating authority has passed an order for personal appearance on 20.04.2026 and the matter is listed today.

3.

When we look into the order dated 20.04.2026 which is filed along with the application, we do not find any specific reason for asking of personal appearance of the appellant. Appellant is appearing through counsel. Section 19(2) application can be heard and decided on the basis of the reply of the appellant, however the adjudicating authority is fully entitled to issue direction for personal appearance if there are specific reasons.

4.

In view of the above, we are of the view that appellant need not appear in person on the date fixed and he should be permitted to represent through counsel before the adjudicating authority.

5.

In view of the aforesaid, we dispose of the application in accepting the Prayer (c) only.

Application is disposed of accordingly.