Suspended directors cannot claim access to premises once the Resolution Professional’s possession has attained finality.

The Appellant is the Resolution Professional (RP) of M/s. INMA International Limited.

The appeals challenge an order dated 12.03.2026 passed by the NCLT, Chennai

In the impugned order, the NCLT permitted Respondent No. 1 (the Suspended Director) to withdraw two interlocutory applications—IA(IBC)/935(CHE)/2024 and IA(IBC)/366(CHE)/2026—but simultaneously directed the RP to ensure "full access" was provided to Respondent No. 1 at the Corporate Debtor’s premises

Consequently, the NCLT dismissed the RP's application, IA(IBC)/2019(CHE)/2025, as infructuous

The RP contended that the issue of possession and access had already been finalized by a prior NCLT order dated 18.10.2024, which was upheld on appeal

1. Whether the NCLT was justified in directing the Resolution Professional to provide "full access" to the Suspended Director after the RP’s possession had attained finality in prior proceedings

2. Whether the dismissal of IA(IBC)/2019(CHE)/2025 as infructuous was legally sustainable following the withdrawal of the Respondent’s applications

The court applied the principle of finality of judicial orders within the framework of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC).

It held that once an order granting possession and access to a Resolution Professional is confirmed by an Appellate Tribunal, it cannot be subsequently modified or disputed by the parties

Furthermore, the court applied the principle of procedural justice, which necessitates the revival of an application dismissed as "infructuous" if the underlying legal basis for that dismissal is set aside

The Tribunal relied heavily on its previous judgment dated 30.03.2026 in a related appeal (Comp App No. 170/2026), which had already addressed the direction regarding "full access"

The NCLAT observed that the RP’s possession of the premises was finalized by the NCLT on 18.10.2024 and subsequent dismissal of appeals therefrom; therefore, the Suspended Director (Respondent No. 1) could no longer dispute the RP's exclusive control

The Tribunal reasoned that the NCLT erred in granting access rights while allowing the withdrawal of the Respondent's applications.

Regarding the dismissal of the RP's application (IA No. 2019/2025), the Tribunal found that since the "full access" direction was being set aside, the RP's application was no longer infructuous and required a fresh hearing on its merits

In Comp App No. 183/2026, the Tribunal set aside the dismissal of IA(IBC)/2019(CHE)/2025 and ordered its revival on the records of the NCLT for a decision in accordance with the law.

Both appeals were disposed of with directions to the Adjudicating Authority to hear the revived application fresh