Lease Cancellation Valid Even by 'In-Charge' Mining Officer Under OMMC Rules: Orissa High Court
06 Mar 2026
Criminal Probe Can't Continue Against Unknowns Sans Prima Facie Offence: Bombay HC Quashes CBI FIR
06 Mar 2026
Justice Dharmadikari Bids Empathetic Farewell to Kerala High Court
06 Mar 2026
Compensation U/S 28A LA Act Not Restricted to Foundational Award: Bombay High Court
06 Mar 2026
Karnataka HC Issues Notice on Sri Lankan Judge's Right to be Forgotten Plea for Removing Alleged Defamatory Online Content
06 Mar 2026
Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari Sworn In as 55th Madras HC Chief Justice
06 Mar 2026
Shrivastava Highlights Bench-Bar Partnership in Farewell Speech
06 Mar 2026
Kerala HC Directs Urgent Monsoon Prep for Flood-Prone Kochi
06 Mar 2026
Ignoring Court-Mandated PWD Safety Report Invalidates Municipal Order: J&K&L High Court
06 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
VIJU ABRAHAM, J
K. SUNIL KUMAR – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
JUDGMENT
In W.P.(C)No.32152 of 2025, the petitioner challenges Ext.P3 order dated 21.08.2025 of the National Company Law Tribunal(NCLT), Kochi Bench in IA (IBC)(Plan)/04/KOB/2025 in CP(IBC)/20/KOB/2023, whereas in W.P.(C)No.32146 of 2025, the petitioner challenges the very same order produced as Ext.P2 of the National Company Law Tribunal, Kochi Bench in IA (IBC) (Plan)/04/KOB/2025 in CP(IBC)/20/KOB/2023 and also Ext.P3 consequential order.
2. W.P.(C)No.32152 of 2025 is filed by a member of the Committee of Creditors holding 80.11% voting shares in the Committee of Creditors, whereas W.P.(C)No.32146 of 2025 is filed by a person who has extended a personal guarantee as against loans taken by the 7th respondent company, which is undergoing a corporate insolvency resolution process. By Ext.P3 order, which is impugned in W.P.(C)No.32152 of 2025, the resolution plan submitted by the Resolution Professional was rejected by the NCLT, Kochi and thereafter decided to give an opportunity to the Corporate Debtor, the Applicant in the Section 7 petition, the Resolution Professional, and the Secured F
The court clarified the appealability of NCLT's rejection of resolution plans under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, confirming that aggrieved parties can appeal under Section 61.
The appellate court reinforces the principle that the writ jurisdiction is not exercised when an efficacious appellate remedy is available, highlighting procedural nuances under the Insolvency and Ba....
Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process – Resolution applicant cannot be permitted to withdraw or modify resolution plan after approval by Committee of Creditors and before an order under Section 31(....
The rejection of a Resolution Plan must comply with statutory requirements, and commercial wisdom of the Committee of Creditors is paramount, limiting the adjudicatory review.
The approved resolution plan under the IBC extinguishes claims not included, rendering any arbitral award related to such claims non-executable.
(1) Approval of resolution plan – If a claim is submitted by an operational creditor claiming itself as a financial creditor, claim would have to be accorded due consideration in category to which it....
The court affirmed that a resolution plan, once approved by the Committee of Creditors under the IBC, is binding and must comply with statutory provisions for effective business revival.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
Listen Article