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

Order Date: July 1, 2026

Case Overview

The NCLAT heard two connected appeals (Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No.535 of 2026 and Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No.536 of 2026) filed against Dinkar T. Venkatasubramanian, the erstwhile Resolution Professional of Metalyst Forgings Ltd. The appellant in CA 535 of 2026 is Arun Kumar Maiti, identified as the CFO of the Corporate Debtor. The appellants in CA 536 of 2026 are Arvind Dham & Others, identified as suspended directors of the Corporate Debtor.

The appeals challenge the Resolution Professional's continued pursuit of actions under Section 66 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) despite the resolution process having been successfully completed. The background reveals that the RP had previously filed an application under Sections 43 and 45 of IBC, which was withdrawn. Subsequently, the RP filed an application under Section 66, which was dismissed by the Adjudicating Authority. However, the dismissal order contained certain observations and directions that granted liberty to the RP to initiate fresh action under Section 66.

The learned Counsel for the appellants argued that despite the successful completion of the resolution process, the RP continues to pursue Section 66 actions, calling for details and other materials. The learned Counsel for the erstwhile RP submitted that the RP's current actions are merely to collect materials pursuant to specific directions given by the Adjudicating Authority in paragraph 28 of the impugned order, with the intention to file a fresh petition under Section 66.

The Tribunal expressed significant concerns about this continuation of proceedings, noting two primary issues: first, confusion about the ultimate purpose the RP seeks to achieve when the resolution process is already over and no financial creditors or other creditors of the Corporate Debtor are requiring additional funds; second, uncertainty about who will pay the remuneration to the RP if his present attempt to keep alive Section 66 proceedings ultimately fails.

Final Outcome

The NCLAT did not issue a final ruling but directed the learned Counsel for the Resolution Professional to take instructions in the matter and file a necessary affidavit addressing the Tribunal's concerns. The matter has been listed for further hearing on July 13, 2026. The practical consequence is that the Resolution Professional must justify the purpose and funding of his continued Section 66 actions post-resolution.

Topics: Insolvency Proceedings, Post-Resolution Litigation, Section 66 IBC