IBC Does Not Impose Time Limit For Rectification Of NCLT Orders: NCLAT New Delhi Upholds Two-Year Limit Under Rule 154 Of NCLT Rules

The present appeal was filed by the erstwhile Resolution Professional of the corporate debtor against the order passed by the adjudicating authority, which approved the resolution plan submitted by the Successful Resolution Applicant. After approval of the resolution plan, the appellant moved an application before the adjudicating authority, seeking rectification of certain figures in the resolution plan. The counsel for the appellant submitted that all the figures have been rectified by the CoC, and then it has moved the application before the adjudicating authority for approval of the resolution plan. However, the approved rectification was omitted from the resolution plan when it was placed before the adjudicating authority. Therefore, the adjudicating authority, vide its order dated 30.07.2024, approved the resolution plan but without the aforesaid ratification. However, the adjudicating authority dismissed the application on the ground that, as per IBC, any application for rectification could only be made within 30 days of passing that order. Aggrieved by the dismissal of its application, the appellant has preferred an appeal before the NCLAT. Proceedings Before the NCLAT The appellant submitted that IBC does not mandate any time limit within which the adjudicating authority has to be approached for rectification of any order. It highlighted that the NCLT Rules, 2016, under Rule 154, provide two-year time for rectifying a final order, and it has moved the tribunal within about three months from the final order. The NCLAT considered the submission of the appellant to be valid and observed that no specific provision of the IBC was mentioned in the order of the adjudicating authority. It observed that the reliance of the appellant on Rule 154 of the NCLT Rules, 2016, to contend that there is a two-year time limit for approaching the adjudicating authority, is correct. The tribunal observed that the appellant has approached the tribunal within three months of the order approving the resolution plan, hence the tribunal should ought to have considered the appellant's application favourably. The NCLAT allowed the appeal by setting aside the impugned order, and it directed the adjudicating authority to hear the parties on merit. Case Name: Sandeep Goel (Erstwhile RP in CIRP of Sarvottam Realcon Pvt. Ltd.) v. Anugraham Builders Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 973 of 2025 For Appellant: Mr. Ankur Mittal and Ms. Sabhya Jain, Advocates. For Respondent: Mr. Kunal Godhwani, Advocate for SRA Bench: Justice N. Sesha Sayee (Member-Judicial) and Barun Mitra (Member-Technical) Order Date: 22.07.2025 Click here to read/download the order

IBC Does Not Impose Time Limit For Rectification Of NCLT Orders: NCLAT New Delhi Upholds Two-Year Limit Under Rule 154 Of NCLT Rules

Mohd.Rehan Ali

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Mohd.Rehan Ali

IBC Does Not Impose Time Limit For Rectification Of NCLT Orders: NCLAT New Delhi Upholds Two-Year Limit Under Rule 154 Of NCLT Rules

Mohd.Rehan Ali

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Mohd.Rehan Ali

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers