TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Impleadment in liquidation proceedings under Section 54 of the IBCorder quashed; interlocutory application reinstated for fresh adjudication</h1> Impleadment in liquidation proceedings under the insolvency regime was held to require an effective opportunity to be heard; the impugned order was ... Impleadment of the Appellant - seeking for the dissolution - proceedings u/s 54 - effective opportunity to be heard - HELD THAT:- As a matter of fact, after meticulously going through the order of liquidation dated 23.11.2022, we find that, the Appellant had been effectively participating in the liquidation proceedings. Ld. Tribunal while passing the impugned order of 21.08.2025, without considering the aspect of the necessity of the Appellant being impleaded, has proceeded to pass the impugned order on merits thereby closing the application holding that, no orders could be passed on it owing to the earlier order of 17.10.2024 which has been kept in abeyance. Exclusively owing to the fact that the impugned order does not embark upon or record any finding to meet the pleadings that were raised by the Appellant in his respective Interlocutory Applications, which were the subject matter of consideration as preferred in IA (IBC) / 2369 (CHE) / 2023 and there is no adjudication on the merits of the application, coupled with the fact that the reason assigned for passing of the order dated 17.10.2024, do not repose much confidence, as it is not foundationed on any legal sound basis, the impugned order dated 21.08.2025 is hereby quashed. The proceedings of IA (IBC) / 2369 (CHE) / 2023 is revived back to its original number, with a request to the Ld. NCLT, Chennai, to decide the IA (IBC) / 2369 (CHE) / 2023 afresh on its merits after giving an effective opportunity to the Appellant to have his say in the proceedings of Section 54 of the I & B Code, 2016, before the Ld. NCLT, Chennai. The consequential effect of the above directions would be that the impleadment of the Appellant, being IA, as respectively preferred in each of the Company Appeals would be deemed to be allowed. Issues: (i) Whether the impugned orders rejecting the interlocutory applications and maintaining proceedings under Section 54 of the IBC adjourned sine die were legally sustainable; (ii) Whether the appellant ought to be impleaded and the proceedings under Section 54 revived for fresh decision on merits.Issue (i): Whether the impugned orders rejecting the interlocutory applications and upholding the adjournment sine die could be sustained.Analysis: The impugned orders closed the interlocutory applications on the basis that earlier proceedings were adjourned sine die due to filing of criminal charge sheets, without addressing the substantive pleadings or affording the affected party an effective opportunity to be heard. The justification for adjournment relied on the existence of criminal proceedings but did not identify any legal authority or principle that mandatorily requires suspension of dissolution proceedings under Section 54 of the IBC where criminal cases are pending. The factual participation of the appellant in liquidation proceedings and potential adverse financial consequences were relevant to whether impleadment and consideration on merits should have been permitted.Conclusion: The impugned orders rejecting the interlocutory applications and sustaining the adjournment sine die are quashed.Issue (ii): Whether the appellant should be impleaded and the Section 54 proceedings revived and decided afresh on merits.Analysis: The interlocutory applications sought impleadment and reopening of the Section 54 proceedings for consideration on merits without prejudice to criminal proceedings. Given the absence of a reasoned adjudication on the merits and the lack of a legal basis for automatic suspension of Section 54 proceedings due to criminal charge sheets, directing revival and fresh adjudication after giving the appellant an effective opportunity to be heard addresses procedural fairness and ensures substantive determination of dissolution under Section 54.Conclusion: The appellant is to be impleaded; the Section 54 proceeding is revived and remitted for fresh decision on merits after affording the appellant an effective opportunity to be heard.Final Conclusion: The impugned orders are quashed, the interlocutory applications for impleadment are deemed allowed, and the Section 54 proceeding is to be taken up afresh for adjudication on merits following appropriate impleadment and hearing.Ratio Decidendi: Pending criminal proceedings do not automatically bar continuation or fresh adjudication of proceedings under Section 54 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; affected parties must be given an effective opportunity to be heard and the matter decided on merits.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
