Authority: National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi (Justice Mohammad Faiz Alam Khan, Member (Judicial) and Naresh Salecha, Member (Technical))

Order Date: 21 August 2026

Case Overview

The appeal was filed by Ashish Arjunkumar Rathi, the erstwhile Resolution Professional of Goyal Energy And Steel Private Limited, under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The appeal challenged the Impugned Order dated 22 May 2026 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Cuttack Bench in IA (IB) (Plan) No. 1/CB/2026 in CP (IB) No. 41/CB/2023.

The dispute centered on a clerical discrepancy in Form-H filed during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). While examining the Resolution Plan submitted by Nakshatra Asset Ventures Limited (which had been approved by the Committee of Creditors with 100% voting share), the NCLT noticed that against the claim of Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited (CSPDCL), the admitted claim amount of ₹34,50,11,865 had been inadvertently reflected as the "claim received" instead of the original claimed amount of ₹34,50,71,329. The difference amounted to ₹59,464.

The Appellant contended that this was a purely clerical and inadvertent error that neither altered the admitted claim of CSPDCL nor affected the constitution of the Committee of Creditors, voting shares, treatment and distribution of claims under the Resolution Plan, or the commercial wisdom exercised by the Committee of Creditors. The NCLT itself had recorded that no prejudice had been caused to CSPDCL or any other stakeholder, and the amount payable to operational creditors remained unchanged.

Despite these findings, the NCLT characterized the error as a "gross dereliction" on part of the Resolution Professional in paragraph 26 of its order and directed in paragraph 96 that a copy of the order be forwarded to the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI). The Appellant argued that these adverse observations were unwarranted, disproportionate, and rendered in violation of natural justice principles as no notice or opportunity was afforded to explain the discrepancy.

Final Outcome

The NCLAT allowed the appeal and expunged the adverse observations contained in paragraph 26 of the Impugned Order regarding dereliction of duty by the Appellant. The Tribunal also expunged paragraph 96 of the Impugned Order directing the Appellant to forward the copy to IBBI. The NCLAT held that the discrepancy was merely a bona-fide clerical or typographical mistake that neither affected the CIRP nor caused prejudice to any stakeholder, and could not be characterized as "gross dereliction" in the absence of any finding of fraud, deliberate misconduct, negligence, wrongful gain, or prejudice. The remaining parts of the Impugned Order approving the Resolution Plan remain unaffected.

Topics: Insolvency Proceedings, Judicial Review, Professional Conduct