Shareholder Lacks Locus to Appeal CIRP Admission Under Section 61 IBC Against Section 7 or 9 Orders

The NCLAT (Chennai) dismissed the company appeal as not maintainable, holding that a shareholder/promoter does not qualify as an "aggrieved person" under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code for challenging an order admitting a Section 7 or Section 9 application and commencing CIRP. Relying on a prior larger Bench ruling, the Tribunal held that an appeal against admission of CIRP at the behest of a shareholder is barred for want of locus standi. Consequently, the appeal was rejected solely on the ground of non-maintainability.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1.1 Whether a company appeal under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, challenging admission of a Section 7 application, is maintainable at the instance of a shareholder of the corporate debtor.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

2.1 Maintainability of appeal by shareholder under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016

Legal framework (as discussed)

2.1.1 The challenge before the Tribunal arose from an order admitting an application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and commencing CIRP against the corporate debtor. The appeal was filed under Section 61 of the Code by an appellant whose status is that of a shareholder of the corporate debtor.

2.1.2 The question whether a shareholder/promoter falls within the ambit of an "aggrieved person" under Section 61 and thus has locus to challenge an order of admission under Sections 7 or 9 was earlier referred to a larger Bench of the Tribunal. The larger Bench, by judgment dated 22.07.2025, held that a company appeal at the behest of a shareholder is not maintainable.

Interpretation and reasoning

2.1.3 The Tribunal noted that the appellant's only capacity is that of "shareholder" of the corporate debtor, and that the specific issue of maintainability of an appeal by a shareholder against an order under Section 7 has already been conclusively answered by the larger Bench.

2.1.4 The Tribunal treated the larger Bench pronouncement as binding, observing that it had "already laid the question to rest" by holding that a company appeal at the behest of a shareholder is not maintainable. Consequently, once the status of the appellant as shareholder was established, the appeal failed on maintainability alone.

2.1.5 Although the respondent's counsel had mentioned non-appearance of the appellant on multiple dates, the substantive basis for disposal of the matter was the legal position settled by the larger Bench that a shareholder has no locus to maintain such an appeal under Section 61 against an order admitting a Section 7 application.

Conclusions

2.1.6 The Tribunal concluded that, in light of the larger Bench judgment dated 22.07.2025, a company appeal under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, challenging the admission of a Section 7 application, is not maintainable at the instance of a shareholder of the corporate debtor.

2.1.7 On that ground alone, the appeal was dismissed as "not maintainable."

---