Debashis Nanda Resolution ... vs Aditya Birla Capital Limited & Anr. & Ors
- CitationComp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1031 of 2026
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Adjudicating Authority's observation that it was "not satisfied with the conduct" of the Resolution Professional cannot stand as a basis for regulatory action where the order gives no reasons for that conclusion and rests on the RP's mere non-appearance, which the RP has explained; such an unreasoned adverse observation may not be relied upon by the IBBI or any other authority in taking steps against the RP.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Debashis Nanda ...Appellant(s)
Versus
Aditya Birla Capital Ltd. & Anr. ...Respondent(s) Present: For Appellant : Mr. Sumant Batra, Mr. Sarthak Bhandari, Riya Kaur Arora, Adv. For Respondents : With Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1032 of 2026 IN THE MATTER OF:
Debashis Nanda ...Appellant(s)
Versus
Aditya Birla Capital Ltd. & Anr. ...Respondent(s) Present: For Appellant : Mr. Sumant Batra, Mr. Sarthak Bhandari, Riya Kaur Arora, Adv. For Respondents : With Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1033 of 2026 IN THE MATTER OF:
Debashis Nanda ...Appellant(s)
Versus
Aditya Birla Capital Ltd. & Anr. ...Respondent(s) Present: For Appellant : Mr. Sumant Batra, Mr. Sarthak Bhandari, Riya Kaur Arora, Adv. For Respondents : With Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1034 of 2026 IN THE MATTER OF:
Debashis Nanda ...Appellant(s) Versus
Aditya Birla Capital Ltd. & Anr. ...Respondent(s) Present: For Appellant : Mr. Sumant Batra, Mr. Sarthak Bhandari, Riya Kaur Arora, Adv. For Respondents :
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode) 03.07.2026: These appeals have been filed against the order dated
14.05.2026 passed by the NCLT, New Delhi where the Adjudicating Authority
on an application filed by the RP for taking on record the report of Section 99
has observed that since no one has appeared on behalf of the RP nor RP has
appeared in person, the Court is not satisfied with the conduct of the RP and
copy of the order be forwarded to the IBBI and order was reserved.
2. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant submits that RP has appeared earlier 11
dates and only on the date i.e. 14.05.2026 the Appellant could not appear. It
is submitted that order does not give any reason how the conduct of the RP
is unsatisfactory and mere non-appearance cannot be a ground to make
adverse observation.
3. We are of the view that only on the basis of observation that "we are not
satisfied with the conduct of the RP" any steps by IBBI be not taken. In view
of the explanation given by the Appellant for non-appearance, we see no
reason to keep the appeal pending. The appeal is disposed of, the observation
made in the impugned order "we are not satisfied with the conduct of the RP"
are not to be taken into consideration while taking any steps against the
Appellant. All the appeals are disposed of accordingly. We have not issued
notice to the Respondents in the facts of the present case. Liberty is given to the Respondents to make an application for modification of this order if they
feel aggrieved. No costs.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Mr. Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) Sheetal/Manu
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