The Committee of Creditors (CoC) in a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) approached the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) with IA No.495 of 2025 seeking impleadment to present arguments regarding the inclusion/exclusion of one of its members, the 4th respondent. The NCLT found the CoC not to be an independent entity and held that only the Resolution Professional (RP) could represent the CoC, deeming the impleadment sought in IA No.466 of 2025 unnecessary. An appeal to the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) resulted in the NCLAT finding that the IBC constitutes the CoC and RP as different entities with distinct roles, but it affirmed the NCLT's order that the CoC was not a necessary party in IA No.466 of 2025. A stay was granted in the matter
…The Committee of Creditors (CoC) in a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) approached the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) with IA No.495 of 2025.
IA No.495 of 2025 sought impleadment for the CoC to put forth arguments regarding the inclusion/exclusion of its 4th respondent member.
The NCLT found the CoC not to be an independent entity and held that only the Resolution Professional (RP) can represent the CoC.
The NCLT found the impleadment sought in IA No.466 of 2025 to be unnecessary.
In an appeal, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) found that the IBC constitutes the CoC and RP as different entities with different roles and specific responsibilities.
…Sign in to view the parties.
The NCLT passed an order in IA No.495 of 2025…
IA No.466 of 2025, concerning impleadment, was…
Sign in to view related legal provisions.
The Committee of Creditors (CoC) in a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) approached the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) with IA No.495 of 2025 seeking impleadment to present arguments regarding the inclusion/exclusion of one of its members, the 4th respondent. The NCLT found the CoC not to be an independent entity and held that only the Resolution Professional (RP) could represent the CoC, deeming the impleadment sought in IA No.466 of 2025 unnecessary. An appeal to the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) resulted in the NCLAT finding that the IBC constitutes the CoC and RP as different entities with distinct roles, but it affirmed the NCLT's order that the CoC was not a necessary party in IA No.466 of 2025. A stay was granted in the matter
…The Committee of Creditors (CoC) in a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) approached the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) with IA No.495 of 2025.
IA No.495 of 2025 sought impleadment for the CoC to put forth arguments regarding the inclusion/exclusion of its 4th respondent member.
The NCLT found the CoC not to be an independent entity and held that only the Resolution Professional (RP) can represent the CoC.
The NCLT found the impleadment sought in IA No.466 of 2025 to be unnecessary.
In an appeal, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) found that the IBC constitutes the CoC and RP as different entities with different roles and specific responsibilities.
…The NCLT passed an order in IA No.495 of 2025…
IA No.466 of 2025, concerning impleadment, was…
Sign in to view related legal provisions.