Corporate Debtor Cannot File Appeal U/S 61 Of IBC In It's Own Name After Appointment Of Resolution Professional: NCLAT New Delhi

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, comprising Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Member-Judicial), Mr. Naresh Salecha (Member-Technical), and Mr. Indevar Pandey (Member-Technical), has held that a corporate debtor in its own name cannot file an appeal under section 61 of the IBC after initiation of CIRP and appointment of IRP. Background of the Case The present appeal was preferred by the corporate debtor, Dhara Cements (India) Pvt. Ltd., u/s 61 of the IBC against the order of the adjudicating authority admitting the section 7 application for CIRP. By the impugned order, the adjudicating authority admitted the application and appointed Mr. Gyaneshwar Sahai as the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP). However, the appeal was filed by the corporate debtor itself and not through the suspended director. Contention of the Parties The appellant submitted that under section 61(1) of the IBC, “any person aggrieved” may file an appeal before the appellate tribunal. It also highlighted that under section 3(23) of the IBC, the word 'person' includes 'company' also. Therefore, it can file an appeal even post admission. It also argued that since the IRP has not yet taken over the management of the corporate debtor, an appeal could be filed by the corporate debtor in its name also. It also filed an IA to amend the cause title in order to reflect that the appeal has been filed through the suspended director. For its submission, it relied on the ruling Dena Bank vs. C. Shivakumar Reddy (2021) 10 SCC 330 and submitted that the amendment of pleadings is permitted. Per contra, the submitted appeal filed by the corporate debtor is per se not maintainable. It argued that once the CIRP is initiated and an IRP is appointed, the management of the corporate debtor gets suspended and it cannot act independently. Relying on the ruling of Innoventive Industries Ltd. v. ICICI Bank, later followed in Krystal Stone Exports Ltd CA (AT) (Ins) No. 1086 of 202, the corporate debtor submitted that only the suspended director can file an appeal. It also highlighted that the IA to amend the title was filed a year later, which is beyond the limitation prescribed u/s 60 of the code. Observations of the NCLAT Citing the ruling of Innoventive Industries Ltd. v. ICICI Bank (Supra), the NCLAT observed that the appeal of the corporate debtor is not maintainable, as the IRP was appointed and the management of the company was suspended. Hence, it cannot maintain appeal in its name. The tribunal observed that the IA seeking the amendment to change the title was filed beyond the prescribed limitation allowed u/s 61 of the code. Further, the bench observed that the appellant has wrongly mentioned in the IA that this court had given the direction for amendment, as it was merely the time granted to file the application. The NCLAT didn't find merit in the submission of the corporate debtor and dismissed the appeal. Case Name: Dhara Cements (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Dineshbhai Khimjibhai Patel Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 444 of 2024 & I.A. No. 1520, 1521, 4288 of 2024 Bench: Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Member-Judicial), Mr. Naresh Salecha (Member-Technical), and Mr. Indevar Pandey (Member-Technical), For Appellant: Ms. Manisha T Karia, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Deepin Deepak Sahni, Ms. Ananya Arora, Advocates. For Respondent: Mr. Palash S. Singhai, Mr. Harshal Sareen, Advocates and Mr. Tirth Nayak. Judgment Date:29.08.2025 Click Here To Read/Download The Order

Corporate Debtor Cannot File Appeal U/S 61 Of IBC In It's Own Name After Appointment Of Resolution Professional: NCLAT New Delhi

Mohd.Rehan Ali

Tags