{"id":362251,"date":"2025-10-01T16:00:43","date_gmt":"2025-10-01T10:30:43","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=362251"},"modified":"2025-10-03T17:38:12","modified_gmt":"2025-10-03T12:08:12","slug":"nclat-rp-to-be-liquidator-unless-replaced-unless-s-34-ibc","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/10\/01\/nclat-rp-to-be-liquidator-unless-replaced-unless-s-34-ibc\/","title":{"rendered":"Resolution Professional to be appointed as liquidator unless replaced by Adjudicating Authority on grounds provided in Section 34 IBC: NCLAT"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi<\/span>: The present company appeal was filed by the Resolution professional (‘appellant’) of Rajesh Landmark Projects (P) Ltd. (‘Corporate Debtor’), challenging the impugned order passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Court V, Mumbai Bench (‘Adjudicating Authority’), which had allowed an interim application filed by the appellant seeking liquidation of the corporate debtor. However, instead of appointing the appellant as liquidator, it appointed Respondent 2, relying on the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (‘IBBI’) circular dated 18-7-2023 (‘Circular’).<\/p>\n

The Bench of Ashok Bhushan, J. (Chairperson)<\/span> and Barun Mitra (Technical Member)<\/span>, stated that the legislative scheme of Section 34(1) of the IBC<\/a> clearly intended the Resolution professional to be appointed as liquidator, with replacement being a discretionary act of the adjudicating authority based on the grounds specified in Section 34(4)<\/a> of the IBC<\/a>. Thus, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, stating that the impugned order insofar as it appointed Respondent 2 as liquidator could not be sustained. Since there were no grounds available under Section 34(4)<\/a> of the IBC<\/a> for replacing the appellant, the appellant was required to be appointed as liquidator.<\/p>\n

Background:<\/h3>\n

The Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (‘CIRP’) against the Corporate Debtor was initiated by an order dated 10-10-2022 passed by the Adjudicating Authority. Subsequently, the appellant was appointed as a Resolution Professional by the Committee of Creditors (‘CoC’). In its 33rd meeting on 10-12-2024, the CoC, with 83.93 % voting share, resolved to not approve RARE Asset Reconstruction Company’s Resolution plan and decided to liquidate the corporate debtor. Pursuant to this, the appellant filed Interim Application for Liquidation. The CoC by its resolution resolved to appoint the appellant as liquidator. The Adjudicating Authority, by the impugned order, allowed the liquidation application but, relying on the Circular, appointed Respondent 2 as liquidator instead, leading to this appeal, which was filed only limited to the extent of challenging her appointment.<\/p>\n

The appellant submitted that under Section 34(1)<\/a> of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016<\/a> (‘IBC’), he was entitled to be appointed as liquidator, and the CoC had already resolved to appoint him. The adjudicating authority’s reliance on the Circular was misplaced, as it was not a circular but an internal communication by IBBI to the Secretary, NCLT, Principal Bench, New Delhi. The communication displaced the legislative scheme in Section 34(1)<\/a> of the IBC<\/a>. This was not a case where the IBBI recommended replacement of the appellant, and the circular was not a recommendation under Section 34(4)(b)<\/a> of the IBC<\/a>. The adjudicating authority failed to follow the statutory scheme under Section 34<\/a> of the IBC<\/a>, making its order unsustainable.<\/p>\n

The CoC submitted that it had already recommended the appellant as liquidator and supported the appellant’s submission. Respondent 2 contented that the appointment of liquidator was the prerogative of the adjudicating authority, hence, Respondent 2 had no submission on the merits of the appeal.<\/p>\n

Analysis, Law, and Decision:<\/h3>\n

The Tribunal noted that the legislative scheme under Section 34(1)<\/a> of the IBC<\/a> clearly provided that, upon written consent, the Resolution Professional was to be appointed as liquidator unless replaced under Section 34(4)<\/a> of the IBC<\/a>. It further noted that Section 34(4)<\/a> of the IBC<\/a> outlined specific grounds for such replacement. The Tribunal held that in the present case, the adjudicating authority relied on the Circular which claimed to have been issued under Section 34(2)(b)<\/a> of the IBC<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The Tribunal noted that the subject of the Circular stated it was a “Recommendation of appointment of the liquidator, other than IRP\/RP under Section 34(4)(b)<\/a> of the IBC<\/a>”. It thus held that it was a general circular issued by the IBBI to the Secretary NCLT, Principal Bench, New Delhi, referring to Section 34(4)(b)<\/a> of the IBC<\/a>, and recommended that an Insolvency Professional other than Interim Resolution Professional\/Resolution Professional may be appointed as liquidator in all cases.<\/p>\n

The Tribunal stated that the legislative scheme of Section 34(1)<\/a> of the IBC<\/a> clearly intended the Resolution professional to be appointed, with replacement being a discretionary act of the adjudicating authority based on the grounds specified in Section 34(4)<\/a> of the IBC<\/a>, and noted that such replacement could not be made through general circular of the IBBI. Further, the liquidation order under Section 33<\/a> of the IBC<\/a> was related to CIRP under Chapter II of the IBC<\/a>, and the Resolution professional referred to in Section 34(1)<\/a> of the IBC<\/a> was the one who functioned during the CIRP. It noted that the replacement contemplated under Section 34<\/a> of the IBC<\/a> was the replacement of a Resolution Professional, which clearly meant the appellant as Resolution professional who was handling the CIRP.<\/p>\n

The Tribunal noted that the Insolvency professional functioned under the regulatory control of the IBBI, which had been given the right under Section 34(4)(b)<\/a> of the IBC<\/a> to recommend replacement of the Resolution professional. It stated that this right given to the IBBI was to recommend the replacement of a specific resolution professional in respect to whom the liquidation order had been passed. The Tribunal stated that the decision to recommend for replacement had to be qua the particular Resolution Professional, which may have been due to work and conduct of the Resolution Professional. It further held that the IBBI could not exercise this power to take a decision that, in all cases of liquidation, the Interim Resolution Professional\/Resolution Professional be not appointed as liquidator.<\/p>\n

The Tribunal held that the power envisaged under Section 34(4)(b)<\/a> of the IBC<\/a> was a power to recommend the replacement of the particular Resolution Professional on facts specific to that individual and was not a general power that could be exercised by the IBBI for issuing the Circular. The Tribunal analysed that the IBBI misinterpreted the power given to it under Section 34(4)(b)<\/a> of the IBC<\/a>. It further stated that the present case was not one where the Circular was issued by the IBBI recommending replacement of the appellant, hence, the said Circular could not serve as a basis for replacing the appellant as liquidator.<\/p>\n

The Tribunal held that the order of the adjudicating authority in the impugned order, appointing Respondent 2 as liquidator, could not be sustained. The appeal was allowed, and the appointment of the appellant as liquidator was substituted in the place of Respondent 2 in the impugned order. It was further directed that Respondent 2 shall be entitled to the expenses incurred.<\/p>\n

[Manish Jaju v. Rajesh Landmark Projects (P) Ltd. (CoC), 2025 SCC OnLine NCLAT 1513<\/a>, decided on 18-9-2025<\/span>]<\/p>\n\n

Advocates who appeared in this case:<\/p>\n

For Appellant:<\/span> Devul Dighe, Advocate<\/p>\n

For Respondents:<\/span> Pranjit Bhattacharya, Salonee Shukla and Aashima Gautam, Advocates for Respondent-1.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The power envisaged under Section 34(4)(b) of the IBC is a power to recommend the replacement of the particular Resolution Professional on facts specific to that individual and is not a general power that could be exercised by the IBBI for issuing the Circular.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67523,"featured_media":362254,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,11],"tags":[58464,32458,30596,51488,90175,88464,88463,34025,90174,90173],"class_list":["post-362251","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-tribunals_commissions_regulatorybodies","tag-barun-mitra","tag-committee-of-creditors","tag-corporate-debtor","tag-corporate-insolvency-resolution-process-cirp","tag-ibbi-circular","tag-justice-ashok-bhusan","tag-nclat-new-delhi","tag-resolution-professional","tag-resolution-professionals-appointment-as-liquidator","tag-section-344b-ibc"],"yoast_head":"\nRP to be liquidator unless replaced under S. 34 IBC: NCLAT| SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"NCLAT stated that the RP to be liquidator unless replaced by the Adjudicating Authority on the grounds specified under Section 34 of IBC.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/10\/01\/nclat-rp-to-be-liquidator-unless-replaced-unless-s-34-ibc\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Resolution Professional to be appointed as liquidator unless replaced by Adjudicating Authority on grounds provided in Section 34 IBC: NCLAT\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"NCLAT stated that the RP to be liquidator unless replaced by the Adjudicating Authority on the grounds specified under Section 34 of IBC.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/10\/01\/nclat-rp-to-be-liquidator-unless-replaced-unless-s-34-ibc\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2025-10-01T10:30:43+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2025-10-03T12:08:12+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/RP-to-be-liquidator.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Shikha\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Resolution Professional to be appointed as liquidator unless replaced by Adjudicating Authority on grounds provided in Section 34 IBC: NCLAT\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Shikha\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/10\/01\/nclat-rp-to-be-liquidator-unless-replaced-unless-s-34-ibc\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/10\/01\/nclat-rp-to-be-liquidator-unless-replaced-unless-s-34-ibc\/\",\"name\":\"RP to be liquidator unless replaced under S. 34 IBC: NCLAT| SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/10\/01\/nclat-rp-to-be-liquidator-unless-replaced-unless-s-34-ibc\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/10\/01\/nclat-rp-to-be-liquidator-unless-replaced-unless-s-34-ibc\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/RP-to-be-liquidator.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2025-10-01T10:30:43+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2025-10-03T12:08:12+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/2affc03135e21686bc983a01adf7101a\"},\"description\":\"NCLAT stated that the RP to be liquidator unless replaced by the Adjudicating Authority on the grounds specified under Section 34 of IBC.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/10\/01\/nclat-rp-to-be-liquidator-unless-replaced-unless-s-34-ibc\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/10\/01\/nclat-rp-to-be-liquidator-unless-replaced-unless-s-34-ibc\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/10\/01\/nclat-rp-to-be-liquidator-unless-replaced-unless-s-34-ibc\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/RP-to-be-liquidator.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/RP-to-be-liquidator.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"RP to be liquidator\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/10\/01\/nclat-rp-to-be-liquidator-unless-replaced-unless-s-34-ibc\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Resolution Professional to be appointed as liquidator unless replaced by Adjudicating Authority on grounds provided in Section 34 IBC: NCLAT\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/2affc03135e21686bc983a01adf7101a\",\"name\":\"Shikha\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/3e1f2590b7e890a7cb68d550c20c899eb796ccc7737e8ea14aa27d44a31366bd?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/3e1f2590b7e890a7cb68d550c20c899eb796ccc7737e8ea14aa27d44a31366bd?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Shikha\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/shikha\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"RP to be liquidator unless replaced under S. 34 IBC: NCLAT| SCC Times","description":"NCLAT stated that the RP to be liquidator unless replaced by the Adjudicating Authority on the grounds specified under Section 34 of IBC.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/10\/01\/nclat-rp-to-be-liquidator-unless-replaced-unless-s-34-ibc\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Resolution Professional to be appointed as liquidator unless replaced by Adjudicating Authority on grounds provided in Section 34 IBC: NCLAT","og_description":"NCLAT stated that the RP to be liquidator unless replaced by the Adjudicating Authority on the grounds specified under Section 34 of IBC.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/10\/01\/nclat-rp-to-be-liquidator-unless-replaced-unless-s-34-ibc\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2025-10-01T10:30:43+00:00","article_modified_time":"2025-10-03T12:08:12+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/RP-to-be-liquidator.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Shikha","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"Resolution Professional to be appointed as liquidator unless replaced by Adjudicating Authority on grounds provided in Section 34 IBC: NCLAT","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Shikha","Est. reading time":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/10\/01\/nclat-rp-to-be-liquidator-unless-replaced-unless-s-34-ibc\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/10\/01\/nclat-rp-to-be-liquidator-unless-replaced-unless-s-34-ibc\/","name":"RP to be liquidator unless replaced under S. 34 IBC: NCLAT| SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/10\/01\/nclat-rp-to-be-liquidator-unless-replaced-unless-s-34-ibc\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/10\/01\/nclat-rp-to-be-liquidator-unless-replaced-unless-s-34-ibc\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/RP-to-be-liquidator.webp","datePublished":"2025-10-01T10:30:43+00:00","dateModified":"2025-10-03T12:08:12+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/2affc03135e21686bc983a01adf7101a"},"description":"NCLAT stated that the RP to be liquidator unless replaced by the Adjudicating Authority on the grounds specified under Section 34 of IBC.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/10\/01\/nclat-rp-to-be-liquidator-unless-replaced-unless-s-34-ibc\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/10\/01\/nclat-rp-to-be-liquidator-unless-replaced-unless-s-34-ibc\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/10\/01\/nclat-rp-to-be-liquidator-unless-replaced-unless-s-34-ibc\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/RP-to-be-liquidator.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/RP-to-be-liquidator.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"RP to be liquidator"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/10\/01\/nclat-rp-to-be-liquidator-unless-replaced-unless-s-34-ibc\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Resolution Professional to be appointed as liquidator unless replaced by Adjudicating Authority on grounds provided in Section 34 IBC: NCLAT"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/2affc03135e21686bc983a01adf7101a","name":"Shikha","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/3e1f2590b7e890a7cb68d550c20c899eb796ccc7737e8ea14aa27d44a31366bd?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/3e1f2590b7e890a7cb68d550c20c899eb796ccc7737e8ea14aa27d44a31366bd?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Shikha"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/shikha\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/RP-to-be-liquidator.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":281427,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/01\/11\/corporate-debtor-default-corporate-insolvency-resolution-process-cirp-coc-liquidation-nclt-reconsider-liquidation-appeal-nclat-upheld\/","url_meta":{"origin":362251,"position":0},"title":"Adjudicating Authority is obligated to give direction for liquidation only when CoC’s decision is in accordance with IBC: NCLAT","author":"Editor","date":"January 11, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"In the instant matter, an appeal was filed challenging NCLT's order directing the CoC to reconsider its decision. Upholding the NCLT's order, the Tribunal held that when the CoC's decision for liquidation is in accordance with IBC, then only NCLT's obligation to direct liquidation will arise.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"NCLAT","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/12\/MicrosoftTeams-image-395.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":281212,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/01\/07\/corporate-insolvency-resolution-process-cirp-corporate-debtor-liquidation-refund-allowed-appeal-partly-allowed-no-inconsistency-s-11b-of-the-central-excise-act-1944-s-335-ibc\/","url_meta":{"origin":362251,"position":1},"title":"No inconsistency between Section 33 IBC and Section 11-B of the Central Excise Act, 1944; NCLAT partly allows appeal","author":"Editor","date":"January 7, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"In the present case, a Liquidator filed an application before for release\/refund of unlawful payment by the applicant. The Tribunal, partly allowing the appeal, upheld the refund of the amount of Rs.25,46,588\/- and of the amount of Rs.1,08,797\/- as no application for refund was filed for the said amount.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"NCLAT","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/12\/MicrosoftTeams-image-395.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":262177,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/02\/22\/if-a-case-was-filed-under-ibc-can-penalty-be-imposed-under-companies-act-nclat-addresses\/","url_meta":{"origin":362251,"position":2},"title":"If a case was filed under IBC, can penalty be imposed under Companies Act? NCLAT addresses","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"February 22, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (NCLAT): The Coram of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Dr Alok Srivastava (Technical Member) held that if the Intervention Application was filed under the IBC, then, any penalty to be imposed should have been under the provisions of IBC and not Companies Act.\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":277998,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/11\/24\/no-prohibition-on-advocate-to-represent-different-company-in-separate-proceedings-filed-under-section-7-ibc-nclat\/","url_meta":{"origin":362251,"position":3},"title":"No prohibition on advocate to represent different company in separate proceedings filed under Section 7 IBC: NCLAT","author":"Editor","date":"November 24, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"\u00a0 \u00a0 National Company Law Appellate Tribunal: While dealing with a matter seeking expunging the adverse remake made against the appellant, a bench comprising of Ashok Bhushan*, J., Dr. Alok Srivastava and Barun Mitra (Technical Members), held that there is no prohibition according to the statutory provision governing appearance of\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"NCLAT","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/11\/MicrosoftTeams-image-279-1.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":262217,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/02\/22\/can-application-filed-under-s-951-read-with-s-601-ibc-be-rejected-on-ground-that-no-corporate-insolvency-resolution-process-was-pending-against-corporate-debtor-nclat-addresses\/","url_meta":{"origin":362251,"position":4},"title":"Can application filed under S. 95(1) read with S. 60(1) IBC be rejected on ground that no Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process was pending against Corporate Debtor? NCLAT addresses","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"February 22, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"\u00a0If CIRP or Liquidation Proceeding of a Corporate Debtor is pending before a NCLT, application relating to Insolvency Process of Corporate or Personal Guarantor should be filed before same NCLT. National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (NCLAT): The Coram of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Dr Alok Srivastava (Technical\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"NCLAT","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/NCLAT_New.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/NCLAT_New.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/NCLAT_New.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/NCLAT_New.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/NCLAT_New.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":280454,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/12\/27\/nclat-no-liquidator-has-any-personal-rights-to-continue-in-liquidation-process-adjudicating-authority-can-order-for-replacement-of-liquidator\/","url_meta":{"origin":362251,"position":5},"title":"NCLAT | No Liquidator has any \u2018personal rights\u2019, to continue in Liquidation Process; Adjudicating Authority can order for replacement of Liquidator","author":"Editor","date":"December 27, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"\u00a0 \u00a0 National Company Law Appellate Tribunal | The bench comprising of M. Venugopal, J. and Naresh Salecha* (Technical Member) held that the Adjudicating Authority which had the powers to appoint the Liquidator also have the power to remove the \u2018Liquidator for any fit, just, valid and proper reasons. \u201c\u2026no\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"NCLAT","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/12\/MicrosoftTeams-image-395.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/362251","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67523"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=362251"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/362251\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/362254"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=362251"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=362251"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=362251"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}