TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 1106
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al, Ms. Vanshika Gupta, Advocates ORDER ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. These two appeals and the IAs filed there in raised common question, hence, are being decided by this common judgment. We need to first notice the facts and relevant dates in both the appeals: (i) Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 144 of 2026: This appeal by M/s S. A. Plywood Industry Pvt. Ltd. (Corporate Debtor) has been filed challenging the order dated 13.11.2025 passed by NCLT, Kolkata Bench - II, Kolkata in C.P. (IB) No.174/KB/2024. By the impugned order Section 7 application filed by the Central Bank of India has been admitted and CIRP against the Corporate Debtor commenced. IRP was also appointed by the impugned order. This appeal was e-filed on 18.03.2026, thereafter being delay in filing the appeal, application I.A. No.537 of 2026 has been filed praying for condonation of delay. An I.A. No.1225 of 2026 has been on 09.02.2026 seeking leave of the Court to amend Memo of Appeal. Applicant prayed for amendment in the Memo of Appeal by permitting Mr. Arun Kumar Saha, Suspended Director of S.A. Plywood Industry Pvt. Ltd. in place of Appellant - M/s S.A. Plywood Industry Pvt. Ltd. Another I.A. No.2174 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Director of Ion Bio Med-ICare Pvt. Ltd. as Appellant. 6. The Amendment Applications came for consideration before this Tribunal. Respondents appeared and objected to the Amendment Applications. It is submitted by the Respondent that the Amendment Application has been filed beyond expiry of 45 days. The appeal which was filed challenging order admitting CIRP was incompetent after expiry of limitation which cannot be permitted to be amended, as prayed. 7. We have heard Shri Abhijeet Sinha, learned senior counsel for the Appellant in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.144 of 2026. Shri Abhijeet Sinha submits that in the present case on the first day when appeal came before the Court for consideration i.e. on 27.01.2026, the Appellant itself prayed that it may be granted leave to file application for amending memo of appeal by substituting in place of Corporate Debtor, the Suspended Director of the Corporate Debtor. Learned counsel for the Appellant has referred to recent judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.3607 of 2026, Nitendra Kumar Tomer, Suspended Director, Ambro Asia Private Limited vs. Unox S.P.A and Another and submitted that said judgment of the Hon'ble Supr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties as noted above. There is no dispute between the parties regarding facts and sequence of events in both the appeals. In Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.144 of 2026, which appeal was filed against the order of Adjudicating Authority admitting Section 7 application filed by Central Bank of India, CIRP has commenced on 13.11.2025 and appeal has been e-filed in this Tribunal on 27.12.2025. After initiation of CIRP against the Corporate Debtor no appeal can be filed by Corporate Debtor. Similarly, in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.663 of 2026, appeal has been filed by Corporate Debtor challenging order dated 04.02.2026 admitting Section 9 application which appeal was also filed by Corporate Debtor although CIRP has commenced. 12. Both learned counsels for the Appellants pray for permitting the memo of appeal to be amended and appeal be permitted to be filed on behalf of Suspended Director of the Corporate Debtor, which amendment is being opposed by Respondents, as noted above. The reliance of the learned counsel for the Respondent is on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nitendra Kumar Tomer (Supra), which judgment....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nce the prescribed limitation period under Section 61(2) expired, it was not open to the suspended director to take steps to convert the incompetent appeal and maintain an appeal in his own name in August, 2025, long after expiry of the prescribed limitation. The NCLAT ought not to have permitted him to do so, whereby a time- barred appeal in the name of the suspended director was presented and entertained." 14. Further in Paras 11 and 13, the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down following: "11. Presently, we find that the appeal, as framed and filed in the name of the corporate debtor by a suspended director claiming to be its authorized representative, was contrary to the mandate of the Code and was, therefore, not at all maintainable. Permitting it to be converted to an appeal by the suspended director at a later point of time, throwing the prescription of limitation to the winds, was a further violation of the Code. The question of rectifying or modifying a wholly incompetent appeal in violation of the mandate of the Code did not arise and the NCLAT, therefore, ought not to have extended indulgence in that regard. Varun Pahwa (supra), therefore, does not further the appe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by this Tribunal in Sanya Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. vs. Kaliber Associates Pvt. Ltd., Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 498 of 2026, Rajesh Jeevan Uttamchandani Erstwhile Director of Shree Sant Kripa Appliances Pvt. Ltd. vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. & Anr., Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.1867 of 2025 and Anup Kumar Singh, Chairman of the Monitoring Committee & the erstwhile RP of E.R. Textile Ltd., Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.911 of 2024. From the orders as relied by the Appellant, it is clear that this Tribunal has allowed amendments in memo of parties in several cases, however, the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nitendra Kumar Tomer, Suspended Director, Ambro Asia Private Limited vs. Unox S.P.A and Another decided on 10.04.2026 is a judgment of Supreme Court declaring the law which is binding under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. In view of the pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 10.04.2026, we are bound to follow the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court and the earlier orders passed by this Tribunal, as relied by the Appellant, are of no avail to the Appellant. 17. The submission of learned counsel for the Appellant that facts and sequence of events in Nitendra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a mode of reasoning assumes that the law is necessarily a logical code, whereas every lawyer must acknowledge that the law is not always logical at all." 17. In Haryana Financial Corporation & Anr v. Jagdamba Oil Mills & Anr, the Court held:- "21. Circumstantial flexibility, one additional or different fact may make a world of difference between conclusions in two cases. Disposal of cases by blindly placing reliance on a decision is not proper. 22. The following words of Hidayatullah, J. in the matter of applying precedents have become locus classicus: (Abdul Kayoom v. CIT, AIR p. 688, para 19) "19. ... Each case depends on its own facts and a close similarity between one case and another is not enough because even a single significant detail may alter the entire aspect. In deciding such cases, one should avoid the temptation to decide cases (as said by Cardozo) by matching the colour of one case against the colour of another. To decide, therefore, on which side of the line a case falls, the broad resemblance to another case is not at all decisive." *** *** *** *** "Precedent should be followed only so far as it marks the path of just....