Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Catalyst Trusteeship Limited vs Mr. Harish Taneja (Resolution ...

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal1 September 2026

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

The reasoning in this order is brief but present. The Tribunal does not decide a contested point of law; it disposes of the appeal by reference to the statutory duty under Section 31(2)(A) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and directs the Adjudicating Authority accordingly. The ratio is: Under Section 31(2)(A) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the Adjudicating Authority is under a statutory duty to dispose of an application for approval of a resolution plan within thirty days from the date of receipt of the resolution plan, and an Appellate Tribunal may, having regard to that mandate and despite the workload of the Tribunals, direct the Adjudicating Authority to dispose of such an application on the next listed date or within thirty days of production of a certified copy of the order, whichever is earlier.

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

Judgment

As delivered

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNALPRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHIComp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1589 of 2026

IN THE MATTER OF: Catalyst Trusteeship Ltd. ...Appellant

Versus

Harish Taneja Resolution Professional of BCC ...Respondents Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Present:

For Appellant : Mr. Gopal Jain, Sr. Adv. along with Mrs. Renuka Iyer, Mr. Anmol Bansal, Mr. Aman Agarwal, Mr. Atul Sharma & Mr. Aditya Vashisth.

For Respondents : Mr. Harish Taneja (in person) & Mr. Gaurav Raj Grover, for R-1.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

[Per : Mohammad Faiz Alam Khan (Oral)]

01.09.2026 I.A. No. 6091 of 2026

Having heard Learned Counsel for the Appellant. We permit the

Appellant to bring on record the certified copy of the Impugned Order within

one week from today.

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1589 of 2026

1. The instant appeal has been filed by the Appellant who's a Financial

Creditor of the Corporate Debtor against the order dated 11.08.2026 passed

by the Learned Adjudicating Authority in Company Petition No. (IB) 495 of

2023, whereby the I.A. No. 64 of 2024 filed by the RP for approval of the

Page 1 of 4 Resolution Plan under Section 31 of the Code has not been taken up for

hearing and has been adjourned to 02.09.2026.

2. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the Resolution Plan

submitted by the Respondent No. 2 i.e., M/s Civitech Developers Private

Limited was approved by the CoC on 08.10.2024 with 94.58% and in this

regard, the aforesaid application was moved by the RP before the Learned

Adjudicating Authority for approval of the Plan on 07.11.2024 and thereafter

the same is pending before the Learned Adjudicating Authority and as of

now the same has been adjourned 25-26 times and despite the indulgence

of the Appellant and other parties the same has not been disposed of.

3. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has drawn our attention towards

the Sub-section (2) (A) of Section 31 of the Code, in order to show that it is

the incumbent duty of the Learned Adjudicating Authority to pass an order

under Sub-section (1) or (2) of Section 31 within a period of 30 days from

the date of receipt of the Resolution Plan therefore, it was obligatory on the

part of the Learned Adjudicating Authority to have disposed of the

application filed by the RP within 30 days, however, so far now it has been

over two years and Plan approval application is pending before the Learned

Adjudicating Authority, therefore, appropriate directions be given to Learned

Adjudicating Authority to dispose of the aforesaid application in a time

bound manner.

4. Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1/ RP submits that he has

also interested to get the aforesaid application disposed of at the earliest

because the same was moved by him.

Page 2 of 4

5. We have heard Learned Counsel for the Parties and perused the

record and having regard to the order, we intend to pass the issuance of

notice to the Respondent No. 2, who is the SRA, is hereby dispensed with.

6. We notice that the Resolution Plan submitted by Respondent No. 2

was approved by the CoC on 08.10.2024, and the application for the

approval of the same was moved before the Learned Adjudicating Authority

by the RP being IA No. 64 of 2024 for the approval of the same.

7. We also notice that it has been about two years, the Plan approval

application moved by the Resolution Professional is pending before the

Learned Adjudicating Authority and the Impugned Order of date 11.08.2026

show that the matter could not be taken due to paucity of time and the

same has been adjourned to 02.09.2026.

8. This Appellate Tribunal is aware of the workload on the Tribunals,

however, having regard to the mandate given under Section 31 (2) (A) has

amended up to date, a duty has been cast on the Learned Adjudicating

Authority to dispose of the application w.r.t., the approval of the Resolution

Plan within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the Resolution

Plan.

9. Thus, having regard to all the facts and circumstances of the case and

the provisions contained under Section 31 (2) (A), we dispose of the instant

appeal, with the request to Learned Adjudicating Authority to dispose of the

aforesaid plan approval application filed by the Resolution Professional, if

possible on the next date on which it has been listed or within 30 days from

production of the certified copy of this order before the Learned Adjudicating

Authority, whichever is earlier.

Page 3 of 4

10. The appeal is dispose of in above manner.

[Justice Mohammad Faiz Alam Khan] Member (Judicial)

[Mr. Naresh Salecha] Member (Technical)

Sim/mr

Page 4 of 4

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