Insolvency professional Mr. Rajesh Mehru filed an appeal on July 31, 2026, challenging a lower tribunal order that bypassed the unanimous recommendation of a sole financial creditor. The legal challenge targets a January 30, 2026 ruling by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) Chandigarh Bench, which ordered the liquidation of M/s Macro Dairy Ventures Private Limited. According to official records, the dispute centers on the authority to select and appoint the liquidator for the corporate debtor.
The underlying corporate insolvency resolution process involved Punjab National Bank as the sole member of the Committee of Creditors, holding a complete 100 percent voting share. Official data shows that the bank formally recommended Mr. Mehru to serve as the liquidator for the company. However, the adjudicating authority chose an independent liquidator, Mr. Rajeesh Gupta, directly from the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India panel.
Legal proceedings at the appellate level are being conducted in a hybrid mode under Section 61(1) and (4) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. Member (Technical) Arun Baroka is presiding over the case, reviewing whether lower tribunals possess the discretion to override unanimous creditor committee recommendations regarding liquidator appointments. The appeal questions the balance of power between judicial authorities and financial creditors in corporate restructuring proceedings.
Industry experts note that the outcome of this appeal could significantly impact commercial jurisprudence and banking practices across India. Creditors closely monitor such rulings to gauge the extent of their statutory autonomy when steering corporate liquidation processes. A definitive judgment may clarify the statutory limits of tribunal intervention in administrative decisions made by majority or sole lenders.
Stakeholders in the financial and legal sectors will watch for the final verdict from the appellate tribunal in the coming weeks. The decision is expected to establish a crucial precedent concerning the appointment protocols under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. Observers anticipate further legal clarity on whether financial creditors retain ultimate authority in choosing insolvency practitioners.
Disclaimer: This article is published for general news and informational purposes only. While every effort has been made to ensure accuracy, readers are advised to verify important information from official sources. The publisher shall not be responsible for any loss or inconvenience arising from reliance on the information published.
Pingback: Tata Power Challenges Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission Tariff Order – smeaccountant