Appellate Challenge Affecting Resolution Plan Can Extend Timeline Under Plan Terms: NCLT Kolkata

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Kolkata Bench, has held that where an approved Resolution Plan provides for exclusion of the period affected by appellate proceedings, the implementation timeline stands extended in accordance with the Plan without requiring a formal stay order or fresh approval by the Committee of Creditors (CoC).

A Bench comprising Technical Member Rekha Kantilal Shah and Judicial Member Labh Singh on 25 August, directed the Monitoring Committee to recompute the implementation timeline on an application by Successful Resolution Applicant Mukesh Goyal concerning Clause (oo) of the approved Resolution Plan for Corporate Debtor Aanchal Ispat Limited. It observed:

“The consequence stipulated in Clause (oo), therefore, arises from the terms of the approved Resolution Plan itself upon the occurrence of the event contemplated therein. It does not require either a fresh exercise of commercial wisdom by the Committee of Creditors or a further order of this Tribunal for its operation,”

The Resolution Plan of Aanchal Ispat Limited was approved by the CoC with 100% voting share and subsequently approved by the NCLT on 27 March 2025. Goyal challenged certain observations in the NCLT's approval order before the NCLAT. The challenge did not question the approval of the Resolution Plan itself. The NCLAT deleted the impugned observations on 11 August 2025.

Clause (oo) of the Resolution Plan provided for exclusion of the period during which appellate proceedings affected implementation while calculating the implementation timelines. Goyal thereafter addressed a letter dated 22 September 2025 to the Monitoring Committee, requesting that 11 August 2025 be treated as the operative NCLT Approval Date.

Goyal submitted that the Monitoring Committee treated the request as one seeking an “extension of timelines”, requiring fresh consent of the CoC and approval of the NCLT. According to him, Clause (oo) operated automatically once the approval order was challenged before the NCLAT.

The former Resolution Professional, on the other hand, submitted that the Monitoring Committee was constituted only to supervise and facilitate implementation of the approved Resolution Plan. It therefore had no power or authority to reinterpret, alter or modify the terms of the Plan after its approval by the CoC and sanction by the Adjudicating Authority.

The Tribunal found that Clause (oo) did not make the extension conditional upon a formal stay of the order approving the Resolution Plan. The clause instead concerned the effect of appellate proceedings on the implementation of the Plan.

It rejected the argument that implementation remained unaffected merely because no formal stay had been granted. It found that the impugned observations in the NCLT's earlier order had created uncertainty regarding Goyal's contingent liabilities, which had a real and substantive bearing on implementation of the Resolution Plan.

Accordingly, the NCLT directed the Monitoring Committee to recompute the implementation schedule in accordance with Clause (oo).

For the Chairman of the Monitoring Committee: Mr. Shaunak Mitra, Advocate; Ms. Komal Agarwal, Advocate.

For the Applicant in I.A. No. 1880/KB/2025 (Mukesh Goyal): Mr. Joy Saha, Senior Advocate; Mr. Rajarshi Banerjee, Advocate; Mr. Koustav De Sarkar, Advocate.

For the Applicant in I.A. No. 371/KB/2026 (Aldous Commodities Pvt. Ltd.): Mr. S. Nigam, Advocate.

For the Committee of Creditors: Ms. Aparajita Rao, Advocate; Ms. Nabanita Dutta, Advocate