Suspended directors cannot seek modification of access once Resolution Professional’s possession of premises attains finality.

The Appellant, the Resolution Professional (RP) of the Corporate Debtor (M/s. INMA International Limited), took possession and secured access to the Corporate Debtor's registered office on 16.08.2025

This action followed an order by the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT) dated 18.10.2024, which directed the Respondent No. 1 (Suspended Director) to handover possession

Respondent No. 1’s appeal against that possession order had been dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal, rendering the RP's possession final

Subsequently, Respondent No. 1 filed applications (IA 935/2024 and IA 366/2026) claiming that the RP was obstructing access to third-party companies sharing the office space

On 12.03.2026, the NCLT passed the impugned order permitting Respondent No. 1 to withdraw these applications but simultaneously directed the RP to "ensure full access is provided to the Applicant with immediate effect"

1. Whether the Adjudicating Authority erred in granting a substantive direction for "full access" to the premises while simultaneously permitting the withdrawal of the applications seeking such relief

2. Whether the Suspended Director (Respondent No. 1) had the legal standing to challenge the RP’s control over the premises after the prior order of possession had attained finality

The Court relied on the principle of finality of litigation, asserting that once an order (specifically regarding the RP's right to possession) is upheld by an Appellate Tribunal, it cannot be re-agitated or modified via subsequent applications by the same party

It also addressed the procedural impropriety of granting relief in an application that is being withdrawn

The court implicitly upheld the RP's statutory authority under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) to maintain exclusive control over the Corporate Debtor’s premises during the resolution process

The Tribunal observed that the RP’s right to possession and access became absolute following the NCLT's order dated 18.10.2024 and the subsequent dismissal of Respondent No. 1’s appeal

Consequently, Respondent No. 1 lacked the jurisdiction to seek any further modifications or "recalls" regarding the RP's control

The Tribunal found the NCLT’s order of 12.03.2026 legally flawed because it issued a mandatory direction for "full access" in favor of the Respondent while the Respondent was withdrawing the very applications that sought such relief

The Tribunal further noted that if third-party entities (sharing the office) were genuinely aggrieved by the RP's restrictions, the law required those specific entities to file their own applications rather than the Suspended Director litigating on their behalf

The Tribunal held that the RP’s possession and access rights were final and could not be disputed by Respondent No. 1

The Tribunal granted liberty to any third-party entities claiming business interests in the premises to file appropriate applications before the Adjudicating Authority, which would be considered on their own merits