# Mr. Rajesh Uttamchandani vs. Mr. Vijay Pitambar Lulla, State Bank of India, Canara Bank, Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd.

> NCLAT judgment dated 2026-09-30. Citation: TCN-2026-NCLAT-00284. The Corporate Debtor, M/s Syska E-Retails LLP, faced financial distress, leading to CIRP…

- **Court:** NCLAT
- **Order date:** 30 Sept 2026
- **Citation:** TCN-2026-NCLAT-00284
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/rajesh-uttamchandan-vs-vijay-pitambar-lulla-ors-o9xnr

## Summary

### Background

The Corporate Debtor, M/s Syska E-Retails LLP, faced financial distress, leading to CIRP commencement on 17.06.2025, initiated by Canara Bank. Mr. Vijay Pitambar Lulla was appointed RP. The CoC, comprising Canara Bank, State Bank of India, and UV Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd., was formed. Despite publishing Form A and G, no compliant resolution plan was received by 25.11.2025. In the 7th CoC meeting (10.12.2025), resolutions for CIRP extension and liquidation both failed to secure the requisite 66% voting threshold, resulting in a deadlock. The initial CIRP period expired on 14.12.2025. Subsequently, the Appellant (a suspended partner and MSME) and another prospective applicant expressed interest in submitting resolution plans. The 8th CoC meeting (29.12.2025)

…

## Facts

The Corporate Debtor, M/s Syska E-Retails LLP, was facing financial distress and defaults towards its creditors.

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.

A three-member Committee of Creditors (CoC) was constituted, comprising Canara Bank, State Bank of India, and UV Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd.

Form A and Form G were published on 19.06.2025 and 20.08.2025, respectively, inviting claims and Expressions of Interest.

Two Prospective Resolution Applicants were shortlisted in the 4th CoC meeting, but no compliant resolution plan was received by the extended date of 25.11.2025.

…

## Issues and analysis

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

**Ratio:** The NCLAT held that Section 33(1)(a) of the IBC, 2016, mandates the Adjudicating

…

**Reasoning:** The CIRP period expired on 14.12.2025 without an approved resolution plan or a valid

…

**Interpretation:** The NCLAT interpreted Section 33(1)(a) as a strict, mandatory provision that

…

**Application:** The NCLAT applied this interpretation to the present case, concluding that

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** Sharad Kumar…; Arun Ba…; +1 more
- **Appellants:** Rajesh Uttamchanda…; Heemanshu…
- **Respondents:** M/S Syska…; Vijay Pitamber…; +3 more
- **Other parties:** Canara…; State Bank of…; +1 more
- **Advocates:** Gaurav…; Karishma…; +10 more

## Timeline

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

## 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-o9xnr