Pending resolution professional replacement proceedings do not warrant adjourning long-pending resolution plan approval.

The Appellant, a member of the suspended Board of Directors of Nimitaya Hotel & Resorts Ltd. (“Corporate Debtor”), challenged the NCLT’s order dated 14 August 2026.

The NCLT had dismissed IA No. 3899 of 2026, by which the Appellant sought a short adjournment of proceedings until IA No. 1222 of 2026, seeking replacement of the Resolution Professional (“RP”), was decided.

The NCLT also proceeded to hear IA No. 987 of 2023 concerning approval of the resolution plan, notwithstanding that IA No. 1222 of 2026 had not been decided, and imposed costs of ₹1,00,000 on the Appellant.

The Appellant relied on complaints alleging forgery, unauthorised withdrawal of approximately ₹50 crore, and collusion between the RP and the Successful Resolution Applicant (“SRA”).

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (“IBBI”) had allegedly recorded prima facie contraventions against the RP, suspended his authorisation for assignment from 28 November 2025, and subsequently passed a final order dated 21 August 2026 suspending him for one year.

During the appeal, IA No. 1222 of 2026 was withdrawn by Respondent No. 3.

1. Whether the NCLT erred in dismissing the Appellant’s application for adjournment on the ground that he lacked locus standi and had failed to establish sufficient grounds for adjournment?

2. Whether the NCLT ought to have decided IA No. 1222 of 2026, seeking replacement of the RP, before proceeding with IA No. 987 of 2023 concerning approval of the resolution plan?

3. Whether the adverse observations made by the NCLT regarding the conduct of the Appellant’s counsel warranted interference by the NCLAT?

The Tribunal applied the principle that adjournment is discretionary and cannot be claimed as a matter of right, particularly where the applicant fails to demonstrate a genuine and legally relevant connection between the pending application and the proceeding sought to be adjourned.

It also applied the insolvency-law principle that resolution proceedings must be conducted expeditiously and should not be frustrated by repetitive or superfluous applications.

Section 27 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, concerning replacement of the Resolution Professional, and Section 12A, concerning withdrawal of insolvency proceedings pursuant to settlement, were referred to in the proceedings, although no substantive determination under either provision was made in this appeal.

The Tribunal also relied on its earlier decision in Nehru Place Hotels and Real Estates Pvt. Ltd. v. Sanjeev Mahajan, Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) Nos. 1715–1716 of 2023, where the Appellant’s settlement proposal had been rejected after its consideration by the Committee of Creditors; the Supreme Court had dismissed the challenge to that decision.

The NCLAT held that the Appellant had not shown that determination of IA No. 1222 of 2026 was a prerequisite for hearing IA No. 987 of 2023.

The resolution plan had been approved by the Committee of Creditors with 100% voting share and the plan-approval application had remained pending since 2023; therefore, the mere pendency of an application concerning replacement of the RP did not justify postponing consideration of the plan-approval proceedings.

The Tribunal also noted the extensive history of repeated applications, transfer attempts, settlement proposals, and other proceedings, which had contributed to delay in the CIRP.

Although the Appellant relied on the alleged statement made by the IBBI before the Delhi High Court, the NCLT had not been provided documentary proof of that statement at the relevant time, and no sufficient nexus was established between the disciplinary proceedings against the RP and the plan-approval application.

In any event, IA No. 1222 of 2026 was subsequently withdrawn, substantially removing the basis for the requested adjournment.

The NCLAT found no ground to interfere with the dismissal of IA No. 3899 of 2026, but directed that the adverse remarks against the Appellant’s counsel should not be used to his prejudice.

It affirmed that IA No. 987 of 2023 concerning approval of the resolution plan could proceed independently of IA No. 1222 of 2026, particularly since the latter had been withdrawn and the resolution plan had been approved unanimously by the CoC.

The dismissal of IA No. 3899 of 2026, including the costs of ₹1,00,000 imposed by the NCLT, was not interfered with.

However, the Tribunal clarified that the adverse observations concerning the conduct of the Appellant’s counsel would not be used to his prejudice.

Pending applications, IA Nos. 6085–6087 of 2026 and 6088–6090 of 2026, were also dismissed.