Ashish Kumar Singh vs M/S. Vayam Technologies Limited & Ors

Ashish K. Singh ....Appellant Vs.

Vayam Technologies Limited & Anr. ...Respondents For Appellant Mr. Aditya Sharan, Advocate. For Respondents Mr. Rachit Mittal, Mr. Yashraj, Mr. Parish Mishra, Mr. Kanishk Raj, Ms. Srishti Agrawal, Ms. Aayushi Kiran, Mr. Shivansh Bansal, Advocates for R1

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

08.09.2026: This Appeal is filed against an order dated 08.07.2026

passed by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal)

New Delhi Bench (Court II) in I.A. No. 6007/ND/2024 in C.P. No. 661 of 2021.

The Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits there are certain adverse

remarks made against him in the impugned order and he seeks to expunge

them. It is submitted the impugned order specially on IA No.6007/ND/2024

notes as under:-

"When IA-4320/ND/2024 and IA-4742/ND/2024 were pressed on behalf of the Suspended Promotors and the Ld. Counsel for the suspended Promotor sought adjournment raising certain grounds including one that the Arguing Counsel is stranded at Mumbai Airport, Mr. Ashish Kumar, Advocate supported his plea. Even now also he submitted that, the Ld. Counsel for the Promotor could speak to him regarding the incident.

2 We are really appalled and dismayed with such approach of the Advocate. When a Lawyer is representing the case of a creditors may be the assignee of the debt of a public Bank, he is not supposed to support the plea of promoter who committed default and led to commencement of CIRP.

At this stage, the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant submitted that since RP has been replaced, he is not pressing the present application. As prayed by him, the application is dismissed as withdrawn."

2. The Appellant is aggrieved of the fact the Ld. NCLT has noted he was not

supposed to support the plea of promoter who had committed default and led

to commencement of CIRP. Though we do not find, this order, in any way cast

aspersions upon the Appellant, an advocate, but as he submits, it is being

used by other counsels in other matters, we only dispose of this Appeal by

saying the observations made by the Ld. NCLT are confined to these

proceedings and not to the prejudice of the Appellant elsewhere.

3. Considering the nature of the Appeal, we are not inclined to issue any

formal notice to the Respondent(s) as the advance notice has been given. The

Appeal stands disposed of. Pending IAs viz. IA No.6303 of 2026 and IA No.6304

of 2026 are also disposed of.

[Justice Yogesh Khanna] Officiating Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)

(Ajai Das Mehrotra) Member (Technical) Anjali/md

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1649 of 2026 & I.A. No. 6303 of 2026