2026 Supreme(Online)(NCLAT) 847
NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI
N. Seshasayee, Judicial Member, Jatindranath Swain, Technical Member
Saranyu Power Trading Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
M.S. Mano Ranjani – Respondent
Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No.436/2026 | Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No.437/2026
Important Points
Subject
Insolvency and Bankruptcy - Creditor Classification
Headnote
Issues: Whether the Adjudicating Authority should determine the status of the creditor and the quantum of the claim before the resolution plans are considered by the CoC.
For the Appellants/Petitioners: R. Sankaranarayanan, Polkampally Pavan Kumar Rao
For the Respondents:
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
25.08.2026:
These twin appeals arise out of certain procedural order of the learned Adjudicating Authority adjourning the hearing on the plea of the appellant herein challenging the decision of the RP to change its classification as an operational creditor from its earlier status as a financial creditor and to reduce the quantumof its claim.
Heard Mr. R. Sankaranarayanan, the learned senior counsel for the appellant. The learned counsel submitted that Form G may be issued at any time and if the resolution process goes without deciding status of the appellant by the learned Adjudicating Authority, then it would affect the internal composition of the CoCand significantly affect the interest of the appellant.
In as much as this appeal is directed only against the procedural order, we wonderhow the appellant may be considered as an “aggrieved person”.
Having said so, we merely require the learned Adjudicating Authority to hear the appellant on its plea both regarding its status as well as the determination of its claim before the resolution plans that might be received are taken up for discussion by the CoC, as expeditiously as possible at any time but at any ratebefore the plans are received.
Both the appeals are accordingly disposed of. No costs.