In the matter of INDIAN TECHNOLIME COMPANY LIMITED
- CitationTP-1/ND/2025 Old No-IB-08/ALD/2025
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal's power to rectify under its procedural rules does not extend to revisiting a considered appointment merely because the applicant has since changed its stance; an appointment made consciously and deliberately on the record cannot be characterised as an inadvertent error warranting rectification. Where an Interim Resolution Professional's consent is on record and the appointing order is otherwise in force, the Tribunal may, by a subsequent direction, substitute the appointee with the consenting professional from a specified date, while preserving the validity of all functions already discharged by the earlier appointee in that capacity in the same process.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI BENCH (COURT – II) Item No. 306 TP-1/ND/2025 Old No-IB-08/ALD/2025 IN THE MATTER OF: Central Bank of India … Applicant/Petitioner Versus Indian Technolime Company Ltd. … Respondent Under Section: 7 of IBC, 2016 Order delivered on 29.01.2026 CORAM: SH. ASHOK KUMAR BHARDWAJ MS. REENA SINHA PURI HON’BLE MEMBER (J) HON’BLE MEMBER (T) PRESENT: For the Applicant : Adv. Sumant Batra, Adv. Sarthak Bhandari, Adv. Riya Kaur Arora Hearing Through: VC and Physical (Hybrid) Mode ORDER IA-454/ND/2026: The prayer made in the captioned application reads thus:
UPASANA/VISHAL
In para 1 of the application, the Applicant has averred that in the order dated 08.01.2026, this Tribunal could inadvertently appoint Mr. Vikram Bajaj, Insolvency Professional, bearing Registration No. IBBI-IPA-002/IP- N00003/2016-2017/10003 as IRP in place of Mr. Nitin Narang, Insolvency Professional, bearing Registration No. IBBI/IPA-002/IP-N00828/2019- 2020/12629 proposed by the Applicant. Para 1 of the application reads thus: “The instant application is being filed by Central Bank of India (‘Applicant’) under rule 11 read with 154 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016 (‘NCLT Rules’) seeking rectification of the order dated 08.01.2025 passed by this Hon’ble Tribunal, wherein this Hon’ble Tribunal while allowing the captioned petition (‘TP (IB) No. 1/ND of 2025’) filed by the Applicant under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, has inadvertently appointed Sh. Vikram Bajaj, Insolvency Professional, bearing Registration No. IBBI/IPA-002/IP-N00003/2016-2017/10003 as the Interim Resolution Professional (‘IRP’), in place of Sh. Nitin Narang, Insolvency Professional, bearing Registration No. IBBI/IPA-002/IP-N00828/2019-2020/12629, proposed by the Applicant. Copy of the order dated 08.01.2026 passed by this Hon’ble Tribunal is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE A-1.”
As can be seen from the Part-III of TP (IB) No. 1/ND/2025, it was Mr. Hemant Sharma bearing Registration No. IBBI/IPA-002/IP- N000I5/2016-2017/10019 whose name was proposed to be appointed as RP. Part-III reads thus:
UPASANA/VISHAL
We are fully conscious that when we had appointed Mr. Hemant Sharma as RP while dictating the order in the open court, Mr. Hemant Sharma turned up and mentioned that he did not wish to continue as RP in the matter and sought to withdraw his consent. At that point of time, the counsel for the bank participated in the proceedings virtually and submitted that it would be proper to appoint Mr. Vikram Bajaj, Insolvency Professional, bearing Registration No. IBBI-IPA-002/IP-N00003/2016-2017/10003 as RP who is also RP in the CIRP is progress qua the principal debtor. The relevant excerpt of the order dated 08.01.2026 reads thus:
UPASANA/VISHAL
Apparently, on 08.01.2026 this Tribunal was conscious and careful and not inadvertent in making appointment of RP. May be subsequently the financial creditor i.e. Central Bank of India filed IA-193/ND/2026 for replacement of Mr. Vikram Bajaj, IP with Mr. Nitin Narang, IP. But the changed stance of the Central Bank of India (FC) can be no ground to impute inadvertence against the Tribunal. Nevertheless, as it may, since in terms of the order dated 19.01.2026 we could take the consent form of IP Mr. Nitin Narang on record, it is directed that from 19.01.2026 Mr. Nitin Narang would discharge the function of IRP. It is made clear that whatever function could be discharged by Mr. Vikram Bajaj, IP in his capacity as IRP qua the present process would hold good. Subject to aforementioned, the present application stands disposed of.
Sd/- Sd/- (REENA SINHA PURI) (ASHOK KUMAR BHARDWAJ) MEMBER (T) MEMBER (J)
UPASANA/VISHAL
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