Tribunal says appellate challenge to personal-guarantee directions materially delayed implementation; directs revised payment schedule and grants partial relief to operational creditor.
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Kolkata Bench, has ruled that the implementation timelines under a resolution plan must be computed from 11 August 2025, the date on which the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) deleted disputed observations from the approval order, and not from 27 March 2025, the original date of plan approval.
The order came in a set of applications arising out of the insolvency resolution of a corporate debtor, where the successful resolution applicant, Mukesh Goyal, sought a declaration that the “NCLT Approval Date” under Clause (oo) of the approved resolution plan should be treated as the NCLAT’s order date of 11 August 2025. He argued that appellate proceedings concerning observations on invocation of his personal guarantee had materially affected his ability to implement the plan and arrange financing.
The tribunal accepted this argument. It held that Clause (oo) of the resolution plan was designed to address situations where implementation is challenged before the NCLAT or Supreme Court, and that the extension of the approval date does not depend on a formal stay order. What matters is whether implementation was actually impeded by the appellate proceedings. In this case, the NCLT found that the disputed observations created uncertainty over the applicant’s contingent liability and affected implementation of the plan.
The Bench noted that the applicant had appealed only against paragraphs 28 and 39 of the approval order dated 27 March 2025, which had suggested possible invocation of the personal guarantee. The NCLAT later agreed with the applicant and the Committee of Creditors, and directed deletion of those paragraphs on 11 August 2025. According to the NCLT, this was not a mere technicality but a substantive event that delayed implementation of the plan.
Accordingly, the tribunal directed the resolution professional and Monitoring Committee chairman to recompute the implementation schedule on the basis that 11 August 2025 is the effective approval date. The successful resolution applicant was also directed to make payments in accordance with the revised schedule. However, the tribunal declined to impose penalty interest on delayed payments, observing that the issue of timeline extension had remained sub judice and the delay could not be treated as a default attributable solely to the applicant.
The tribunal also dealt with a separate application filed by operational creditor Aldous Commodities Private Limited, which claimed that a sum of Rs. 13,66,107 had become due on 23 September 2025 under Regulation 39(5A) of the CIRP Regulations, 2016. The creditor sought immediate payment, liquidation of the corporate debtor in the alternative, and penal action against the resolution applicant and resolution professional.
The NCLT rejected the creditor’s primary claim as premature, holding that once the effective approval date is treated as 11 August 2025, the 180-day payment period would expire only on 7 February 2026, not 23 September 2025. Since no default had occurred on the earlier date, the plea for liquidation and punitive action failed. However, the tribunal noted that the revised due date had now also passed without payment and therefore directed the successful resolution applicant to pay the operational creditor the amount of Rs. 13,66,107 in terms of the revised timeline.
The tribunal further declined to initiate misconduct proceedings against the monitoring committee chairman, observing that he had placed the dispute before the creditor and the tribunal rather than acting unilaterally.
In the result, the NCLT allowed the resolution applicant’s application in part, approved the revised implementation schedule, and partly allowed the operational creditor’s application by directing payment of the admitted amount.
Bottom Line :
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Interpretation of "NCLT Approval Date" under Clause (oo) of the Resolution Plan - Effective approval date extended due to appellate proceedings affecting implementation timelines.
Statutory provision(s): Sections 30(6), 31, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; Regulation 39(5A), CIRP Regulations, 2016; Section 74(3), Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016
Mukesh Goyal v. Santanu Brahma, (NCLT)(Kolkata Bench) : Law Finder Doc id # 2987713
