Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Committee Of Creditors Of M/S. Eskay K ... vs Ajit Kumar Insolvency Professional & ...

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal17 April 2026

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

Where the Committee of Creditors recommends that the incumbent Resolution Professional continue as liquidator, the Adjudicating Authority may not appoint a liquidator of its own choice in place of that recommendation; the CoC has the right to appoint the liquidator, in view of the IBBI circular dated 18.07.2023 as applied in the earlier decisions of this Tribunal in Manish Jaju and Nipul Bansal. Whether the recommended Resolution Professional is eligible to be appointed as liquidator is a separate question that this order expressly leaves open for the Adjudicating Authority to decide, and it forms no part of the ratio.

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. 99 of 2026

IN THE MATTER OF: Committee of Creditors of Eskay K 'N' IT (India) Limited Through Bank of India ...Appellant Versus Ajit Kumar Insolvency Professional ...Respondent Present: For Appellant :

For Respondent : Ms. Prachi Johri and Mr. Sachin Jain, Advocates for R-2. Mr. Abhishek Anand, Mr. Karan Kohli, Ms. Vanshika Agarwal and Ms. Palak Kalra, Advocates.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

17.04.2026: This appeal is filed by the Committee of Creditors (CoC) of

M/S. Eskay K 'N' IT (India) Limited, challenging the order of the Adjudicating

Authority appointing a Liquidator, overlooking the recommendation of the

CoC to allow the RP continue as the liquidator, based on the IBBI circular

dated 18.07.2023 (Circular No. Liq-12011/214/2023-IBBI/840).

2. This issue is squarely covered by the ratio laid down by this Tribunal

in [Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1165 of 2025] Manish Jaju Erstwhile

Resolution Professional of Rajesh Landmark Projects Private Limited

Vs. The Committee of Creditors of Rajesh Landmark Projects Private

Limited Through M/s Asset Care & Reconstruction Enterprise Limited

& Anr. which was followed in [Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1020 of 2025] Mr. Nipul Bansal, Former Resolution Professional, M/s Cheema Spintex

Limited Vs. M/s Cheema Spintex Limited & Ors.

3. In these authorities, the effect of the IBBI Circular dated 18.07.2023

(Circular No. Liq-12011/214/2023-IBBI/840) has been considered, and the

right or authority of the CoC to appoint a liquidator of its choice has been

recognised. In view of these facts, the order of the Adjudicating Authority

appointing a person of its own choice as the Liquidator cannot be sustained.

4. The learned counsel for the Liquidator submits that while the present

liquidator may not have a locus standi to contest, as he does not have any

vested right to be a liquidator, he is required to place certain facts on record.

Learned counsel further submits that the RP, whom the CoC has

recommended, is not eligible to be a RP and equally not eligible to be

appointed as a Liquidator.

5. This issue, however, is left open for the Adjudicating Authority to take

a call. In the present case, we only hold that, in view of the judgments in

Manish Jaju Erstwhile Resolution Professional of Rajesh Landmark

Projects Private Limited Vs. The Committee of Creditors of Rajesh

Landmark Projects Private Limited Through M/s Asset Care &

Reconstruction Enterprise Limited & Anr., [Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No.

1165 of 2025] and Mr. Nipul Bansal, Former Resolution Professional,

M/s Cheema Spintex Limited Vs. M/s Cheema Spintex Limited & Ors.,

[Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1020 of 2025], the CoC has the right to appoint

the Liquidator.

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 99 of 2026 2 of 3

6. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. No costs.

Justice N. Seshasayee Member (Judicial)

Arun Baroka Member (Technical) rashmi

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 99 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