Committee of Creditors possesses legal standing to litigate in its name within IBC framework.

The Corporate Debtor (CD), M/s. Think and Learn Pvt. Ltd., was admitted into CIRP under Section 9 of the IBC.

Following disputes regarding the constitution of the Committee of Creditors (CoC), the Resolution Professional (RP) dropped M/s. Glas Trust Company LLC (99.41% voting share) and ABCL from the CoC, a decision later overturned by the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT).

Subsequently, a suspended director of the CD filed I.A. No. 466/2025 seeking the removal of Glas Trust from the CoC.

The CoC filed an impleadment application (I.A. No. 495/2025) to join those proceedings, which the NCLT dismissed on the grounds that the CoC lacks legal character to litigate in its own name and is not a necessary party.

The CoC appealed this dismissal.

Whether the Committee of Creditors (CoC) possesses a legal character or juristic personality to litigate in its own name under the IBC scheme.

Whether the Resolution Professional (RP) is the sole authority empowered to represent the CoC in legal proceedings.

Whether the CoC is a necessary or proper party to be impleaded in an application seeking the removal of one of its individual members.

The court examined Section 21 of the IBC regarding the constitution and composition of the CoC.

Section 3(23) of the IBC defines a "person" to include "any other entity established under a statute".

It contrasted this with jurisprudential principles of corporate personality and partnership law where entities must be registered to sue/be sued.

It further applied the principle from *Regen Powertech Pvt. Ltd. v. Giriraj Enterprises*, clarifying that the RP and CoC are distinct statutory entities with different roles.

Finally, it relied on the "necessary and proper party" doctrine, which requires a party's presence only if their rights are directly affected or their presence is essential for adjudication.

The Tribunal held that while a CoC does not meet the classical definition of a juristic person (lacking perpetual succession or a common seal), it is a "statutory contrivance" essential to the IBC.

Rejecting a purely purist jurisprudential approach, the Tribunal adopted a functional approach, noting that for a decade, CoCs have litigated in their own names (e.g., *Essar Steel*) without challenge.

It ruled that for the "functional efficacy" of the IBC, a CoC must be allowed to litigate in its name within the framework of the Code.

However, regarding impleadment, the Tribunal reasoned that since a CoC is a collective of creditors with independent contracts and divergent interests, the challenge to one member’s (Glas Trust) status is a private contractual issue between that creditor and the CD.

The removal of one member does not threaten the collective rights of the entire CoC; therefore, the CoC's presence is neither necessary nor proper for deciding Glas Trust's eligibility.

A CoC can litigate in its own name for IBC-related remedies to maintain practical utility.

The RP does not exclusively represent the CoC in all matters, as they are distinct entities.

The CoC is not a necessary party to an application challenging the membership of one specific financial creditor.

The court also provided "fine-tuning" guidelines for future litigations, requiring individual CoC members to be arrayed as respondents when the CoC's collective stance is unknown.