Back
NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Bikram Bhadur – Appellant
Versus
Committee of Creditors of Beoworld Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. – Respondent
I.A. 3611 of 2025 | Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) 1874 of 2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Nikhil Kohli, Miss Akshaya Ganpath
For the Respondents: Not specified
The Tribunal cannot entertain appeals challenging the appointment of a Resolution Professional under valid statutory authority, despite pending challenges to the CoC's constitution.
Headnote:The appeal was filed by the Suspended Director of Beoworld Pvt. Ltd. challenging the NCLT's order allowing the Committee of Creditors to appoint a Resolution Professional under Section 27. Despite the appellant's pending challenge against the CoC's constitution, the Tribunal determined that the appeal could not be entertained as the appointment complied with statutory requirements. The Tribunal concluded that there was no error in the initial order, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. fact of appeal concerning the appointment of resolution professional. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. existence of valid statutory authority for the appointment. (Para 5) |
| 3. dismissal of the appeal without error in the initial order. (Para 6) |
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
12.11.2025 : Heard counsel for the appellant.
2. The appeal has been filed by the Suspended Director of the Corporate Debtor challenging the order dated 29.07.2025 passed by the NCLT, New Delhi, Bench-III in I.A. 3611 of 2025. IA was filed by Committee of Creditors under Section27 for approving the appointment of Shri Rakesh Kumar Parakh as the Resolution Professional which application has been allowed. Aggrieved by the said order appellant has come up in this appeal.
3. Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has filed an application challenging the constitution of the CoC which application rejected and challenging the said order now appeal has been filed which is pending Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) 1874 of 2024. It is submitted that in view of the aforesaid, the CoC could not have approved the appointment of RP.
4. We have considered the submission of the counsel for the appellant and perused the records.
5. Under Section 27 , it is the CoC which is empowered to replace the Resolution Professional with requisite majority. The CoC which is existing as on date and functioning has passed the resolution for change of the RP which has been approved the impugned order. The mere fact tht appellant is aggrieved by the constitution of the CoC and made a challenge which is pending consideration in this Tribunal cannot be a ground to oppose the 2 of 2 appointment of the RP who has the approval under Section 27 .
6. We thus are of the view that at the instance of the appellant, this appeal cannot be entertained, we do not find any error in the order dated 29.07.2025. Appeal is dismissed.
We make it clear that appointment of Resolution Professional by the impugned order shall have no bearing on the pending issues raised by the appellant.
