Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(NCLAT) 563

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Ashok Bhushan, J
S.A. Plywood Industry Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Central Bank of India – Respondent
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 144 of 2026 | I.A. No.537, 1225, 2174 of 2026 | Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 663 of 2026 | I.A. No.3148, 2842, 2843 of 2026

For the Appellants/Petitioners:Mr. Abhijeet Sinha, Sr. Adv. with Mrs. Anjani A., Ms. Somya Dutta, Ms. Vandana K., Advocates.
For the Respondents:Mr. Brijesh Kumar Tamber, Mr. Prateek Kushwaha, Mr. Dhimaan Dutta, Advocates. Ms. Pooja Agrawal, Advocate with CA Subodh Kr. Agarwal, RP.

An appeal filed by a Corporate Debtor after CIRP commencement is incompetent and not a curable defect. No amendment to substitute the Suspended Director as appellant is permissible after expiry of the 45-day limitation period under Section 61(2) of the IBC.

Headnote:(A) Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Section 61(2) - Appeal by Corporate Debtor after initiation of CIRP - Limitation - Amendment of Memo of Appeal - The appeal filed by the Corporate Debtor after commencement of CIRP is incompetent and not a curable defect; amendment to substitute the Suspended Director as Appellant cannot be permitted after the expiry of the limitation period of 45 days (30+15) under Section 61(2). (Paras 13, 15, 22)

(B) Precedent - Binding nature - Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court under Article 141 of the Constitution is binding on the NCLAT, and earlier orders of the Tribunal allowing amendment in similar cases cannot prevail. (Paras 16, 17)

Facts of the case:
Two appeals were filed by Corporate Debtors against orders of the NCLT admitting Section 7 and Section 9 applications for initiation of CIRP. In both cases, the Corporate Debtors filed the appeals after CIRP had commenced. On the first date of hearing, the Appellants sought leave to file amendment applications to substitute the Suspended Directors as Appellants. The Respondents opposed the amendments, contending the appeals were incompetent and time-barred.

Findings of Court:
Both appeals were dismissed as incompetent.

Issues: The main issues were whether an appeal filed by a Corporate Debtor after CIRP commencement is a curable defect, and whether an amendment to substitute the Suspended Director can be allowed after the expiry of the 45-day limitation period under Section 61(2).

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that an appeal by the Corporate Debtor after CIRP commencement is wholly incompetent and not a curable defect. Following the Supreme Court's decision in Nitendra Kumar Tomer, no amendment can be permitted after the expiry of the limitation period. The binding nature of Supreme Court precedents was affirmed. Result : Both Memo of Appeals dismissed as incompetent.

Table of Content
1. introduction of two appeals and facts (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. arguments on amendment applications (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
3. analysis of nitendra kumar tomer judgment (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
4. binding nature of supreme court precedent (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
5. conclusion and dismissal of appeals (Para 21 , 22)

O R D E R

ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.

1.These two appeals and the IAs filed there in raised common question, hence, are being decided by this common judgment. We need to first notice the facts and relevant dates in both the appeals:

(i) Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 144 of 2026: This appeal by M/s S. A. Plywood Industry Pvt. Ltd. (Corporate Debtor) has been filed challenging the order dated 13.11.2025 passed by NCLT, Kolkata Bench – II, Kolkata in C.P. (IB) No.174/KB/2024. By the impugned order Section 7 application filed by the Central Bank of India has been admitted and CIRP against the Corporate Debtor commenced. IRP was also appointed by the impugned order. This appeal was e-filed on 18.03.2026, thereafter being delay in filing the appeal, application I.A. No.537 of 2026 has been filed praying for condonation of delay. An I.A. No.1225 of 2026 has been on 09.02.2026 seeking leave of the Court to amend Memo of Appeal. Applicant prayed for amendment in the Memo of Appeal by permitting Mr. Arun Kumar Saha, Suspended Director of S.A. Plywood Industry Pvt. Ltd. in place of Appellant - M/s S.A. Plywood Industry Pvt. Ltd. Another I.A. No.2174 of 2026 has been filed on 19.03.2026 praying for taking certain additional documents on record.

(ii) Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 663 of 2026: This appeal has been filed by Ion Bio Med-Icare Pvt. Ltd. (Corporate Debtor) challenging the order dated 04.02.2026 passed by NCLT, New Delhi, Principal Bench admitting Section 9 application filed by the Respondent - Draegerwerkag and Co KGAA – (Operational Creditor). By impugned order dated 04.02.2026, the Adjudicating Authority admitted Section 9 application and appointed Ms. Sunita Umesh as IRP. Against the impugned order the appeal has been e-filed on 03.03.2026. An I.A. No.2843 of 2026 has been filed on 20.04.2026 seeking amendment of appeal. Another I.A. No.3148 of 2026 has been filed placing on record subsequent events.

2. Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 144 of 2026 came to be listed for consideration on 27.01.2026 along with the delay condonation application. Learned counsel for the Appellant sought liberty to file an I.A. to amend the Memo of Appeal. On 27.01.2026 following order was passed:

“O R D E R (Hybrid Mode)

27.01.2026 Learned Counsel for Appellant seeks liberty to file an I.A. to amend the Appeal, which may be done within ten days.

List this Appeal on 12^th February 2026.”

3. Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.663 of 2026 came for consideration on 17.04.2026, on which date learned counsel for the Appellant sought liberty to file an IA to amend the appeal. Order dated 17.04.2026 is as follows:

“O R D E R (Hybrid Mode)

17.04.2026: Learned counsel for the appellant seeks liberty to file I.A. to amend the appeal, which may be done within three days.

List this appeal on 23rd April, 2026.

4. In both the Appeals, as noted above, amendment application has been filed praying for amendment of the appeal. In Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.144 of 2026 by IA No.1225 of 2026 amendment is sought in Memo of Parties by substituting Mr. Arun Kumar Saha, Suspended Director of S.A. Plywood Industry Pvt. Ltd. as Appellant/Applicant. Application has been filed on 09.02.2026.

5. Similarly, in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.663 of 2026, application has been filed being IA No.2843 of 2026 on 20.04.2026 seeking amendment of appeal. In the application, the Applicant seeks to amend Memo of Parties by substituting Mr. Anil Gupta, Suspended Director of Ion Bio Med-ICare Pvt. Ltd. as Appellant.

6. The Amendment Applications came for consideration before this Tribunal. Respondents appeared and objected to the Amendment Applications. It is

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(NCLAT) 563

An appeal filed by a Corporate Debtor after CIRP commencement is incompetent and not a curable defect. No amendment to substitute the Suspended Director as appellant is permissible after expiry of the 45-day limitation period under Section 61(2) of the IBC.

Cases Referred (1)