Authority: National Company Law Tribunal Chandigarh Bench, Court-I (Mr. Khetrabasi Biswal, Member (Judicial) and Mr. Shishir Agarwal, Member (Technical))

Order Date: 10 July 2026

Case Overview

The application was filed by Mr. Tejinder Pal Setia, a member of the suspended board of directors of Corporate Debtor Chandigarh Overseas Private Limited, under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 read with Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules, 2016. The applicant sought three specific reliefs: (1) direction to the Resolution Professional (Mr. Mohit Chawla) to provide a copy of the resolution plan(s), (2) permission to raise objections to the resolution plan and IA (IBC)(Plan) No. 6/2024, and (3) stay of voting upon resolution plan(s) during pendency of the application.

The applicant argued that as a member of the suspended management, he was a necessary party to the plan approval process and relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Vijay Kumar Jain v. Standard Chartered Bank & Ors. (2019) which established that suspended directors are "participants" in the CIRP entitled to receive copies of resolution plans. The application was filed on 19 July 2025, citing urgency as the plan approval application was listed for hearing on 21 July 2025.

The Resolution Professional opposed the application, noting that the applicant had attended both the 13th CoC meeting (05 March 2024) where resolution plans were discussed and the 15th CoC meeting (19 March 2024) where the plan was approved by 99.21% voting share. The RP argued that the 14-month delay in seeking the plan demonstrated the application was filed to derail and delay the CIRP proceedings. The RP cited previous orders from both NCLT (11 February 2025 in IA 700/2024) and NCLAT (10 March 2026 in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1348/25) that had characterized the applicant's conduct as frivolous and dilatory.

Analysis and Findings

The tribunal acknowledged the Supreme Court precedent in Vijay Kumar Jain that establishes suspended directors' right to receive resolution plans, but found this right is "neither absolute nor unqualified" and must be considered within the statutory scheme and timing of proceedings. The tribunal found decisive that: (1) the resolution plan had already been approved by the CoC with 99.21% majority on 19 March 2024, (2) the applicant attended both meetings where the plan was discussed and approved, and (3) the application was filed 14 months later without explanation for the delay.

The tribunal concurred with previous findings that the applicant displayed a "pattern of conduct" that was "dilatory and obstructive in nature" and intended to derail the CIRP at an advanced stage. The relief seeking stay of voting was rendered infructuous since voting had already occurred, and granting such belated requests would defeat the time-bound objective of the IBC.

Final Outcome

The application (I.A. (I.B.C) No. 1174 of 2025) was dismissed with costs. The applicant was directed to pay ₹2,00,000 (Two Lakhs) to the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund within two weeks and submit proof of payment to the tribunal registry.

Topics: Insolvency Proceedings, Legal Compliance, Director Rights