Legal Analysis: Nitendra Kumar Tomer vs. Unox S.P.A. & Anr

Citation: 2026 INSC 356
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran (Division Bench)
Judgment Author: Justice Sanjay Kumar
Date of Decision: April 10, 2026
Nature of Judgment: Civil Appeal under Section 62 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 against NCLAT order.

Synopsis of the Judgment

A suspended director of a corporate debtor filed an appeal before the NCLAT in the name of the corporate debtor, challenging the admission of a Section 9 application under the IBC. After the appointment of an Interim Resolution Professional (IRP), the suspended director had no authority to represent the corporate debtor. The NCLAT, however, permitted amendment of the appeal memo to convert it into an appeal by the suspended director personally, even after the limitation period under Section 61(2) IBC had expired. The Supreme Court held that such an appeal was wholly incompetent from its inception – not a curable defect – and that the NCLAT’s indulgence violated the strict limitation mandate of the IBC. The appeal was dismissed on grounds of maintainability without examining merits.

1. Basic Information of the Judgment

Field Details Case Title Nitendra Kumar Tomer, Suspended Director vs. Unox S.P.A. & Anr. Civil Appeal No. 3607 of 2026 Bench Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran Date of Decision April 10, 2026 Citation 2026 INSC 356 Appeal From Judgment dated 07.01.2026 of NCLAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 931/2024

2. Legal Framework

Laws Involved:

• Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC): Section 9 (operational creditor’s application), Section 16 (appointment of IRP), Section 17(1)(a) (management vests in IRP), Section 61(2) (appeal to NCLAT – 30 days + 15 days condonable delay), Section 62 (appeal to Supreme Court).

• Limitation principles under I

... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.