Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – ss.16, 17, 61 – A suspended director of Ambro Asia Private Limited, the corporate debtor, filed the present appeal u/s.62 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, aggrieved by the judgment dated 07.01.2026 passed by the NCLAT – By the said judgment, the NCLAT confirmed the order dated 18.04.2024 passed by the NCLT, admitting CP (IB) No. 722/ND/2021, an application filed u/s.9 of the Code by Unox S.P.A., an operational creditor, respondent no.1 – Earlier, the NCLAT had permitted the appeal to be prosecuted by the suspended director of the corporate debtor – Correctness: Held: Once the interim resolution professional was named by the NCLT in the admission order, s.17(1)(a) of the Code would become operative – Therefore, with effect from the date of admission in the case on hand, i.e., 18.04.2024, the management of the affairs of the corporate debtor, Ambro Asia Private Limited, stood vested in Interim Resolution Professional, and it was not open to the suspended director of the corporate debtor to file an appeal in the name of the corporate debtor, Ambro Asia Private Limited, claiming to be its director and authorized representative – The appeal as framed and filed on 24.04.2024 before the NCLAT was, therefore, wholly incompetent – It was not merely a ‘defective’ appeal as it was not maintainable in its very inception – The normal period of limitation prescribed u/s.61(2) is 30 days but the proviso thereto permits the NCLAT to condone the delay of up to 15 days, if sufficient cause is shown for not filing the appeal within the prescribed period of
30 days – This being the legal position, the indulgence shown by the NCLAT on 12.08.2025 completely desecrated the aforestated statutory prescription – The suspended director of the corporate debtor, could have filed an appeal against the admission order dated 18.04.2024 only within the limitation period prescribed u/s.61(2) of the Code – The misconceived appeal filed by him in the name of the corporate debtor, Ambro Asia Private Limited, professing to be its director and authorized representative, was wholly incompetent and was not an appeal with a ‘curable’ defect, which could have been attended to at a later point of time – It was, therefore, not open to the said suspended director to seek modification of the cause title in this incompetent appeal – Unfortunately, the NCLAT lost sight of this aspect and treated the wholly incompetent appeal as a merely defective one, whereby it deemed it appropriate to grant time to the suspended director to amend the memo of the appeal – Once the prescribed limitation period u/s.61(2) expired, it was not open to the suspended director to take steps to convert the incompetent appeal and maintain an appeal in his own name – The NCLAT ought not to have permitted him to do so, whereby a time-barred appeal in the name of the suspended director was presented and entertained. [Paras 6, 7, 8]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan 2024 SCC OnLine NCLAT 909. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.