# Mr. Rajesh Uttamchandani vs. Mr. Vijay Pitambar Lulla & Ors.

> NCLAT judgment dated 2026-09-30. Citation: TCN-2026-NCLAT-00293. The Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) for M/s Syska E-Retails LLP commenced on…

- **Court:** NCLAT
- **Order date:** 30 Sept 2026
- **Citation:** TCN-2026-NCLAT-00293
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/rajesh-uttamchandan-vs-vijay-pitambar-lulla-ors-4gup9

## Summary

### Background

The Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) for M/s Syska E-Retails LLP commenced on 17.06.2025, initiated by Canara Bank. Mr. Vijay Pitambar Lulla was appointed as the Interim Resolution Professional and subsequently confirmed as Resolution Professional. The Committee of Creditors (CoC) was formed with Canara Bank, State Bank of India, and UV Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. During the 7th CoC meeting, resolutions for extending the CIRP period and initiating liquidation both failed to secure the requisite 66% voting threshold, leading to a deadlock. The initial CIRP period expired on 14.12.2025 without an approved resolution plan or a valid extension. The Appellant, a suspended partner and MSME, expressed interest in submitting a resolution plan after the

…

## Facts

The Impugned Order dated 08.01.2026 was passed by the 'Adjudicating Authority' (National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench-I) in IA (I.B.C)/74/MB/2026 in C.P. (IB) No. 548/MB/2024.

The NCLT order directed liquidation of the Corporate Debtor, M/s Syska E-Retails LLP, under Section 33(1) of the IBC.

The CIRP commenced on 17.06.2025, following the admission of a Section 7 petition filed by Canara Bank.

Mr. Vijay Pitambar Lulla was appointed as Interim Resolution Professional and subsequently confirmed as Resolution Professional.

Claims from three Financial Creditors (Canara Bank, State Bank of India, and UV Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd.) were received, leading to the constitution of a three-member Committee of Creditors (CoC).

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether, after expiry of the CIRP period without a resolution plan being received within the …

**Ratio:** The Adjudicating Authority is statutorily bound to pass a liquidation order under Section

…

**Reasoning:** Section 33(1)(a) of the IBC mandates liquidation if no resolution plan is received within

…

**Interpretation:** Section 33(1)(a) of the IBC imposes a strict, mandatory consequence of

…

**Application:** In this case, since the CIRP period for M/s Syska E-Retails LLP expired on

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** Sharad Kumar…; Arun Ba…; +1 more
- **Appellants:** Rajesh Uttamchanda…; Canara…
- **Respondents:** M/S Syska…; Vijay Pitamber…; +3 more
- **Other parties:** State Bank of…; UV Asset Reconstru…
- **Advocates:** Gaurav…; Karishma…; +11 more

## Timeline

- **2025-06-17 — CIRP Commen…**: Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) commenced for M/s Syska E-Retails LLP on…
- **2025-06-19 — Form A Publ…**: Form A was duly published inviting…

## Legal provisions

- [Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 61(4) — Appeals and Appellate Authority](https://caseease.in/legal-provisions/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016/section-61)

---

This is a preview. The full structured summary, issues, precedents and source judgment are available on CaseEase - Legal Intelligence Simplified: https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/rajesh-uttamchandan-vs-vijay-pitambar-lulla-ors-4gup9