RPs attempting to undermine orders face contempt, says NCLAT Chennai

The Chennai Bench of the NCLAT has initiated suo motu contempt proceedings against a resolution professional, warning that attempts to neutralise interim orders undermine institutional authority

Noting that the resolution professional (RP) fraternity is untouched in contempt and need to be taught a lesson, the Chennai Bench of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) on Tuesday dismissed a leniency application filed by an RP, seeking to withdraw contempt proceedings against him.

 

A Bench comprising Judicial Member Sharad Kumar Sharma and Technical Member Jatindranath Swain observed that filing applications crafted to neutralise or override interim directions amounted to a deliberate stratagem.

 

The Bench remarked that such conduct, particularly by insolvency professionals, could not be countenanced and warranted strict scrutiny.

 

“This art of filing an application superseding the orders passed by this Tribunal by way of articulating the relief in a manner to override the interim order, that is a clever device. And for that, someone has to be taught a lesson, particularly to this fraternity which is untouched in contempt," the appellate tribunal said.

 

The proceedings arise from an insolvency action initiated by Indo Shell Mould, which alleged breach of an August 2023 settlement.

 

The National Company Law Tribunal had admitted the company to the corporate insolvency resolution process on September 15, 2025. That admission was subsequently stayed by the appellate tribunal on October 27, 2025, after a challenge by the suspended director, with directions that the insolvency process remains in abeyance.

 

Despite the stay, the interim resolution professional, Anil Kumar Khicha, is alleged to have continued asserting control.

 

In an email dated November 10, 2025, he stated that since the appellate tribunal had not expressly ordered restoration of management to the board, he was not obliged to relinquish charge. The Bench viewed this as an attempt to substitute a personal interpretation in place of a binding judicial direction.

 

At a hearing held on December 22, 2025, the tribunal found the conduct prima facie contemptuous and initiated proceedings on its own motion. On Tuesday, arguments that the impugned application stemmed from a misunderstanding of the interim order were rejected. The Bench underlined that the professional concerned was fully conversant with the insolvency procedure and could not claim the benefit of ignorance or seek indulgence as a layperson.

 

When regret was expressed and leniency sought, the tribunal cautioned that contempt jurisdiction could not be trivialised or presumed to be waived. It emphasised that the matter involved preservation of institutional authority rather than individual mercy, and that any dereliction would invite consequences.

 

The resolution professional has been directed to file a reply to the contempt notice. The tribunal also ordered that the contempt proceedings be listed alongside the connected insolvency appeals, in which the interim protection against the insolvency admission continues to operate.