NCLAT: No Violation Of Natural Justice If NCLT Refers To IBBI Order Passed After Reserving Judgment When RP Doesn’t Challenge It
Pranav B Prem
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, has held that when the resolution professional (RP) does not challenge or contest an order passed by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI), a reference made to such order by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) after reserving judgment does not amount to a violation of natural justice. The bench comprising Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Judicial Member) and Naresh Salecha (Technical Member) was dealing with an appeal filed by Pankaj R. Majithia, the Resolution Professional of Shree Ram Urban Infrastructure Ltd., challenging certain remarks made by the NCLT while replacing him with a new RP.
The corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) of Shree Ram Urban Infrastructure Ltd. commenced with the appointment of an Interim Resolution Professional (IRP), who was later confirmed as the RP. The appellant subsequently replaced the earlier RP, and later, the ex-promoter and director of the corporate debtor, Vikas Kasliwal, filed an application seeking the appellant’s replacement. The adjudicating authority allowed the application and appointed M/s Truvisory Insolvency Professional Pvt. Ltd. as the new RP.
Appellant’s Contentions
During the hearing, the appellant restricted his prayer to expunging certain adverse remarks made against him in the impugned order instead of pressing for its complete quashing. He contended that the NCLT erred in observing that he failed to pursue I.A. No. 872 of 2025. According to him, the application was filed on time, defects were rectified, and the matter was listed for hearing before the tribunal.
The appellant also submitted that the tribunal wrongly assumed that he ignored a notice dated May 18, 2023, issued by the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA), whereas the notice was never served personally and came to his knowledge only through a routine inspection. Further, he argued that the NCLT referred to an IBBI order dated June 24, 2025, despite having reserved its judgment earlier on June 17, 2025, without giving him an opportunity to respond to that order.
Respondent’s Submissions
Appearing for the ex-promoter, Senior Advocate Gautam Narayan submitted that the appellant had made contradictory claims. While in a letter dated July 4, 2023, the appellant acknowledged receipt of the MHADA notice, in another communication dated February 7, 2024, through counsel, he claimed to have come across the notice only during inspection. It was further argued that even though the IBBI order was passed after the NCLT had reserved its judgment, the order had been officially forwarded to the tribunal, and the adjudicating authority was within its right to take judicial notice of it.
Observations of the NCLAT
The appellate tribunal, after hearing both sides, found no merit in the appellant’s submissions. Referring to the letter dated July 4, 2023, the bench observed that it clearly mentioned the receipt of MHADA’s notice on that date, which falsified the appellant’s claim that he was unaware of the notice. The tribunal remarked that the appellant’s inconsistent statements raised questions about his integrity, and that he was negligent in diligently pursuing the application I.A. No. 872 of 2025, having relied merely on the tribunal’s website instead of following up through the registry.
Regarding the alleged breach of natural justice due to the NCLT’s reference to the IBBI order dated June 24, 2025, the bench noted that the authenticity of the IBBI order was never denied by the appellant. Since the order was forwarded to the tribunal officially and the appellant did not contest it, the question of a hearing on that aspect did not arise. The NCLAT thus held that the NCLT committed no error in making references to the IBBI order while passing its decision.
Holding that all three issues raised by the appellant were without substance, the NCLAT concluded that the adjudicating authority had rightly passed its order and made the impugned observations. Consequently, the appellate tribunal dismissed the appeal and noted that the connected interlocutory application (I.A. No. 4618 of 2025) had become infructuous since the replacement of the RP had already been effected.
Appearance
For Appellant: Mr. Anuj Tiwari, K. Ahuja, Vaibhav Vats, Adv.
For Respondents: Mr. Gautam Narayan, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Rohit Gupta, Aakashi Lodha, Adv. for R1 Mr. Kunal Godhwani, Prateek Gupta, Raghav T., for I.A No. 4618 of 2025
Cause Title: Pankaj Majithia, RP of Shree Ram Urban Infrastructure Ltd. vs. Vikas Kasliwal & Ors.
Case No: Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 958 of 2025
Coram: Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Member-Judicial), Naresh Salecha (Member-Technical)
