Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Asrec India Limited Member Of Committee ... vs Kamal Agarwal Erstwhile Resolution ...

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal25 March 2026

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

The adjudicating authority's appointment of a liquidator is tested by the position on the date the impugned order was passed: where the insolvency professional proposed by the Committee of Creditors held no valid Authorisation for Assignment (AFA) on that date, the adjudicating authority cannot be faulted for appointing another liquidator, since a later revalidation does not render the earlier order erroneous. Under the IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016, the Stakeholders Consultation Committee is empowered to seek a change of liquidator; such a request must be made by a decision taken in accordance with the due resolution, supported by reasons, and filed as an application before the adjudicating authority, which is to consider it in accordance with law.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNALPRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHICompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 568 of 2026&I.A. No. 2191 of 2026

IN THE MATTER OF: ASREC India Limited Member of Committee of Creditors for Torque Automotive Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellant Versus Kamal Agarwal & Ors. ...Respondents

Present: For Appellant : Mr. Kunal Godhwani, Ms. Kinjal Chadha and Mr. Amit Mahaliyam, Advocates.

For Respondents : Mr. Abhishek Anand, Mr. Karan Kohli and Ms. Ridhima Mehrotra, Advocates for R-1.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

25.03.2026 : This appeal has been filed against an order dated

29.01.2026 passed by the adjudicating authority limited to the extent that by

impugned order, adjudicating authority has not appointed the liquidator who

was proposed by the Committee of Creditors (CoC). The adjudicating

authority in the impugned order in paragraph 9(b) has given following reasons

for not appointing the liquidator proposed by the CoC:

"9. In view of the above observations and findings, it is hereby ordered as follows:-

b) Since, the AFA of the proposed liquidator was valid till 31.12.2025 and not revalidated or renewed. Therefore, we hereby appoint, Pankaj Prabhudayal Goenka, Reg. No. 02129/2021-

2022/13903; IBBI/IPA-001/IP-P-Address: 204, Shahibaugh, Near Austmangal Complex, Rajasthan Hospital, Ahmadabad, Gujarat, 380004, E-mail ID: goenkap@gmail.com, Mobile No. 93281-65582, AFA No. AA1/13903/02/300627/108982 valid till 30.06.2027), as a Liquidator of the Corporate Debtor i.e. M/s. Torque Automotive Private Limited as per the panel suggested by IBBI for this Bench for the period of 16.01.2026 to 30.06.2026 to carry the liquidation process."

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that AFA was prayed for to

be revalidated which revalidation came on 12.02.2026, hence the insolvency

professional recommended by the CoC ought to have been appointed by the

liquidator.

3. We have heard counsel for the appellant and perused the record.

4. When the order was passed on 29.01.2026 admittedly the AFA of the

insolvency professional recommended by the CoC was not in existence. Thus,

on the date when the order was passed, there was no error in the order of the

adjudicating authority appointing another liquidator.

5. We, however, are of the view that under the IBBI Liquidation

Regulations, 2016, the Stakeholders Consultation Committee (SCC) is fully

empowered to request for change of the liquidation. It is fully open for the

committee to take an appropriate decision and file an application before the

adjudicating authority giving its reasons for replacement in accordance with

the due resolution, which shall be considered by the adjudicating authority

in accordance with the law.

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 568 of 2026 & I.A. No. 2191 of 2026 2 of 3 Subject to above, the appeal is dismissed.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) himanshu/md

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 568 of 2026 & I.A. No. 2191 of 2026 3 of 3

This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.

Research this judgment with Miss Lucy

Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.

Try Miss Lucy free