NCLAT Rules: Suspended Director Lacks Locus under CIRP; Moratorium under IBC Does Not Bar Adjudicating Authority from Allowing Arbitral Counterclaim
- REEDLAW
- 2 hours ago
- 3 min read
REEDLAW Legal News Network reports:Â In a significant ruling, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Chennai Bench, held that a suspended director has no locus standi to intervene or challenge counterclaim proceedings before an Arbitral Tribunal during the pendency of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). The Tribunal clarified that all management powers vest exclusively in the Resolution Professional under Section 17 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and that the moratorium imposed under Section 14 does not prevent the Adjudicating Authority from permitting arbitral counterclaims against the Corporate Debtor.
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Chennai Bench, comprising Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma (Judicial Member)Â and Mr. Jatindranath Swain (Technical Member), while adjudicating a batch of two Company Appeals and connected Interlocutory Applications, held that a suspended director has no locus to intervene or challenge proceedings relating to counterclaims before an Arbitral Tribunal during CIRP, as all management powers vest exclusively in the Resolution Professional under Section 17 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
The Appellate Tribunal dealt with two interconnected appeals arising from an order of the Adjudicating Authority permitting the Respondent to file a counterclaim before the Arbitral Tribunal, subject to the declaration of the award being kept in abeyance. The Appellant, being the suspended director of the Corporate Debtor under CIRP, challenged the said order as well as the rejection of his intervention application, contending that the moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, barred continuation or initiation of arbitration proceedings, including counterclaims. He argued that the Adjudicating Authority had erred in relying upon precedents subsequently overruled by the Supreme Court, including Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. IVRCL and SSMP Industries Limited v. Perkan Food Processors Private Limited, REEDLAW 2019 Del 07503, instead of adhering to the settled ratio in P. Mohanraj and Others v. Shah Brothers Ispat Private Limited, REEDLAW 2021 SC 03526.
The Appellate Tribunal observed that the Appellant had filed an intervention application seeking impleadment in the proceedings concerning permission for filing a counterclaim, asserting that his rights as a suspended director would be affected. The Tribunal examined whether the Appellant qualified as a necessary or proper party under Order I Rule 10 CPC and found that he neither had an enforceable right in the arbitration proceedings nor established that the matter could not be effectively adjudicated in his absence. Since the Corporate Debtor was already under CIRP, all management powers vested in the Interim Resolution Professional under Section 17 of the Code, thereby divesting the Appellant of any authority to act on behalf of the Corporate Debtor.
The Tribunal further held that the relief sought in the Respondent’s application before the Adjudicating Authority was limited to allowing the Arbitral Tribunal to consider a counterclaim in the pending arbitration, where the Appellant was not a party. Therefore, his apprehension of being indirectly affected by the outcome was unfounded. The Tribunal concluded that the Appellant’s impleadment plea was rightly rejected, as he failed to satisfy the parameters required under Order I Rule 10 CPC. Consequently, his appeal challenging the rejection of the intervention application was dismissed.
Having dismissed the appeal relating to impleadment, the Tribunal held that the Appellant had no locus to challenge the order permitting the counterclaim to be adjudicated before the Arbitral Tribunal. It affirmed that the Adjudicating Authority’s direction to the Arbitral Tribunal did not suffer from any illegality or material irregularity. Accordingly, both appeals were dismissed, and all pending interlocutory applications were closed.
Mr. H.K. Chaturvedi, Ms. Anjali Chaturvedi, Mr. Sagar Chaturvedi, Ms. Udit Chaturvedi and Mr. Saurabh Ajmera, Advocates, represented the Appellant.
Mr. C.S. Chauhan, Advocate, appeared for the respondent no. 1.
Ms. Sandhya Tadla, PCS, appeared for the respondent no. 2.
This is premium content available to our subscribers.
To access the full content related to this article — including the complete judgment, detailed legal analysis, ratio decidendi, headnotes, cited case laws, and updates on relevant statutes and notifications — we invite you to subscribe to REEDLAW’s premium research platform.
Â
Click here to Subscribe and unlock exclusive access to structured legal analysis, judicial summaries, and a comprehensive legal research database.
Already a subscriber? Click the link below to access the full document and linked case laws.
REEDLAW Legal Intelligence & Research is India’s most trusted legal publishing and research platform, empowering professionals with structured judicial insights and authoritative legal intelligence since 1985.
The platform offers comprehensive resources spanning Corporate Insolvency, Bankruptcy, Company Law, SARFAESI, Debt Recovery, Contract, MSMEs, Arbitration, Banking, and Commercial Laws. Through curated journals like IBC Reporter and Bank CLR, and an advanced Online Legal Research Database, REEDLAW simplifies complex legal research for professionals, institutions, and academia across India.