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

Order Date: 27 July 2026

Case Overview

This appeal was filed by the Institute of Instrumentation & Media Science and others against an order dated 13.05.2026 of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Guwahati Bench. The NCLT had dismissed their recall application seeking to set aside an ex-parte order dated 13.12.2024. That original order was passed in IA(IBC)/159/GB/2024, an application filed by the Liquidator of Nayak Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (the Corporate Debtor) under Section 35 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC).

The appellants claimed to be tenants of a property in Bhubaneswar, Odisha, under an unregistered lease agreement dated 03.01.2023 with individuals named Prakash Chandra Bijuli and Subhendra Kumar Bhanjadeo. They contended they vacated the property on 10.07.2024 and informed the Liquidator via email on 03.09.2024. They alleged the Liquidator's application under Section 35 was based on incorrect facts and that the NCLT's ex-parte order was passed without serving them notice, directing them to vacate the property and pay arrears of rent amounting to ₹46,50,000 for the period from 03.01.2023 to 30.07.2024, plus monthly rent of ₹1,50,000 thereafter until possession was handed over.

The appellants became aware of the order only through newspaper publications related to contempt proceedings filed for its non-compliance. They then filed a recall application, which the NCLT dismissed primarily on the grounds of a 400-day delay in filing it and lack of merit.

The NCLAT, after hearing both parties and perusing the record, found that the Liquidator and the NCLT registry had sent multiple communications and notices to the appellants' confirmed email address (iims.khandagiri@gmail.com), which did not bounce back. The tribunal noted that the appellants had communicated with the Liquidator from this same email ID. It also referenced an affidavit from the Liquidator's representative, supported by GPS-tagged photographs, stating that the appellants had refused to accept physical notices on 04.09.2024. The NCLAT concluded that the appellants had sufficient knowledge of the proceedings but chose not to participate and failed to provide any proof of rent payments to substantiate their tenancy claim.

Final Outcome

The NCLAT dismissed the appeal, upholding the NCLT's order. It found no illegality in the NCLT's decision and agreed that the 400-day delay in filing the recall application was inexcusable under the time-bound framework of the IBC. The ex-parte order dated 13.12.2024, directing the appellants to vacate the property and pay ₹46.5 lakh in rent arrears to the Liquidator, stands.

Topics: Insolvency Litigation, Property Possession, Procedural Delay