Authority: National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi

Order Date: 30 October 2026

Case Overview

The instant application (I.A. No. 7122 of 2026) was filed by Harish Taneja, an insolvency professional, in connection with Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1624 of 2026. The appellant sought to implead Mr. Alok Kaushik (as Respondent No. 2) and Mr. Rabindra Kumar Mintri (as Respondent No. 3) in his appeal against an order passed by the Disciplinary Committee of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI). The DC order had suspended Taneja's registration as an insolvency professional for two years effective from 17 August 2026.

The appellant argued that the original complaint was filed by Mr. Alok Kaushik in his capacity as authorized representative of financial creditors without proper authorization from the creditors. He further contended that Mr. Kaushik had resigned due to ill health and was replaced by Mr. Rabindra Kumar Mintri through an order dated 9 September 2026 from the adjudicating authority (NCLT), where 43 out of 231 creditors voted in favor of Mr. Mintri's appointment. The appellant presented meeting minutes from 20 September 2026 where home buyers allegedly clarified they had not authorized the filing of any complaint against him.

The IBBI opposed the application, arguing that the appellant sought to implement a provisional authorized representative appointed without following proper procedure after the suspension order was already passed. The IBBI also alleged that the appellant misrepresented before the Committee of Creditors that the NCLAT had stayed the operation of the impugned order.

The NCLAT extensively referenced its previous judgment in Navneet Gupta vs. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Company Appeal (AT) (INS) No. 1621 and 1629 of 2026) dated 10 September 2026, where it had held that while a complainant may be an "aggrieved person" entitled to file an appeal under Section 220(7) of the IBC, they are not a necessary party to an appeal filed by a delinquent professional. The tribunal emphasized that a complainant should only be impleaded upon their own request, not against their wish, to protect them from frivolous litigation.

Final Outcome

The NCLAT dismissed the application, holding that neither the erstwhile authorized representative (Mr. Alok Kaushik) nor the newly appointed authorized representative (Mr. Rabindra Kumar Mintri) were required to be impleaded as respondents in the appeal. The tribunal ruled that the veracity of the impugned order must be adjudicated based on the material that was available before the Disciplinary Committee at the time of its decision. The court noted that replacement of an authorized representative under Regulation 16A (3A) of the CIRP Regulations, 2016 is prospective and does not nullify acts validly performed by the erstwhile representative during their tenure. The appeal was listed for further hearing on 25 November 2026.

Topics: Insolvency Professional Discipline, Authorized Representative Authority, NCLAT Procedure