NCLAT overturns NCLT move disqualifying JC World Hospitality promoters

NCLAT said the NCLT "in a callous manner without looking into materials on record" have come to the conclusion that the promoters are disqualified, which is perverse and unsustainable

ibc
Representative Image
Press Trust of India New Delhi
4 min read Last Updated : Nov 16 2025 | 4:02 PM IST

Insolvency appellate tribunal NCLAT has set aside NCLT orders, which had declared promoters of JC World Hospitality ineligible to submit their resolution plan under Section 29A of the IBC.

NCLAT said the NCLT "in a callous manner without looking into materials on record" have come to the conclusion that the promoters are disqualified, which is perverse and unsustainable.

A two-member bench of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has revived the application filed by RP of JC World Hospitality before the Delhi bench of NCLT seeking approval for bids submitted by promoters and take a decision within three months.

The application "filed by the RP for approval of the Resolution Plan of the SRA (promoters) is revived before the adjudicating authority (NCLT) for passing an appropriate order in the plan approval application."  It further said, "The plan approval application has been pending for about four years. We are of the view that the adjudicating authority shall endeavour to dispose of the application within three months from the date a copy of this order is produced before the adjudicating authority."  Section 29A of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code (IBC) bars promoters from submitting a resolution plan; however, Section 240A provides relaxations to MSMEs, allowing erstwhile promoters to submit a plan unless they are wilful defaulters.

Promoters of JC World Hospitality, an MSME engaged in real estate development, had submitted their resolution plan, which was approved by the committee of creditors.

Following this, the RP had moved an application before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), seeking its approval in November 2021. Meanwhile, Amrapali Fincap, whose bid was not selected, also approached NCLT.

Meanwhile, Amrapali Fincap also filed an appeal challenging an earlier order of NCLT in this matter and subsequently moved before the Supreme Court, which had on April 20, 2022, stayed further proceedings. However, on July 24, 2024, the apex court disposed of the appeal and directed the NCLT to take up the matter expeditiously.

NCLT on July 22, 2025, passed its order, in which promoters were declared ineligible under Section 29A. The resolution plan submitted by them and approved by the CoC was quashed and set aside. NCLT further directed RP to place the order before the CoC, the resolution plan submitted by Amrapali Fincap for consideration.

Aggrieved by this, promoter Vijay Kant Dixit, Rita Dixit and others challenged it before NCLAT by filing an appeal.

The appellate tribunal did not agree with the NCLT order and said its observation that the promoters do not fulfil the eligibility criteria is "wholly erroneous" as the requirement of the resolution applicant of net worth of Rs 50 crore was fully fulfilled. The CoC had put an eligibility criteria of a net worth of Rs 50 crore.

It also pulled up NCLT for rejecting an email from the MCA dated March 7, 2025, removing disqualification of promoters Rita Dixit and Vijay Kant Dixit effective 13.08.2018 and 29.05.2018, respectively.

"The observation of adjudicating authority (NCLT) that promoters are ineligible under the RFRP, is without any basis," said NCLAT bench comprising Chairperson Justice Ashok Bhushan and Member, Technical Barun Mitra.

NCLAT noted that promoter's resolution plan was approved with 100 per cent votes of the commercial space buyers. The voting was conducted in accordance with Section 25A(3A) of the IBC and the authorised representative has voted on the basis of majority of votes of the financial creditors in class.

The appellate tribunal said order passed by the NCLT was unsustainable.

"The order dated July 22, 2025, is set aside. IA No.850 of 2022 filed by Amrapali Fincap is rejected," NCLAT said in its 74-page-long order.

(Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)

*Subscribe to Business Standard digital and get complimentary access to The New York Times

Smart Quarterly

₹900

3 Months

₹300/Month

SAVE 25%

Smart Essential

₹2,700

1 Year

₹225/Month

SAVE 46%
*Complimentary New York Times access for the 2nd year will be given after 12 months

Super Saver

₹3,900

2 Years

₹162/Month

Subscribe

Renews automatically, cancel anytime

Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans

Exclusive premium stories online

  • Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors

Complimentary Access to The New York Times

  • News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic

Business Standard Epaper

  • Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share

Curated Newsletters

  • Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox

Market Analysis & Investment Insights

  • In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor

Archives

  • Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997

Ad-free Reading

  • Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements

Seamless Access Across All Devices

  • Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app

More From This Section

Topics :NCLATNCLT casesInsolvency and Bankruptcy Code

First Published: Nov 16 2025 | 4:02 PM IST

Next Story