CIRP Expiry Without Valid Extension Mandates Liquidation: NCLAT Delhi Affirms Statutory Consequence Under Section 33(1)(a) of IBC

Case Overview

Case: Rajesh Uttamchandani Vs Vijay Pitambar Lulla & Ors. (NCLAT Delhi)
Court: National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi
Subject Matter: Challenge to liquidation order passed under Section 33(1)(a) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, delivered a significant ruling in the matter of Rajesh Uttamchandani Vs Vijay Pitambar Lulla & Ors., dismissing the appeal filed against the liquidation order dated 08.01.2026 issued by the NCLT Mumbai Bench in respect of M/s Syska E-Retails LLP. The Appellate Tribunal unequivocally held that upon expiry of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) period without receipt of a resolution plan and without a validly approved extension, the mandate of Section 33(1)(a) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 is automatically triggered, leaving the Adjudicating Authority with no residual discretion to defer liquidation.

Background and CIRP Timeline

The CIRP of M/s Syska E-Retails LLP commenced on 17.06.2025 following admission of a petition filed by Canara Bank under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. Mr. Vijay Pitambar Lulla was appointed as the Interim Resolution Professional and was subsequently confirmed as the Resolution Professional. Three financial creditors — Canara Bank, State Bank of India, and UV Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. — filed claims, resulting in the constitution of a three-member Committee of Creditors (CoC).

Form A and Form G were published on 19.06.2025 and 20.08.2025 respectively, inviting claims and Expressions of Interest from prospective resolution applicants. Although two prospective resolution applicants were shortlisted at the 4th CoC meeting, no compliant resolution plan was received by the last extended deadline of 25.11.2025.

Critical Events Leading to Liquidation

7th CoC Meeting and the Voting Deadlock

At the 7th CoC meeting held on 10.12.2025, the Resolution Professional placed two agenda items before the CoC:

1. Extension of the CIRP period by 90 days to facilitate issuance of a fresh Form G
2. Initiation of liquidation proceedings under Section 33 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016

E-voting was conducted between 15.12.2025 and 18.12.2025. The outcomes were as follows:

Neither resolution crossed the mandatory threshold of 66% as required under Section 30(4) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. Consequently, both proposals failed, and the CoC found itself in a complete institutional deadlock — unable to conclusively approve either extension or liquidation.

Expiry of the Statutory CIRP Period

The initial CIRP period of 180 days, as defined under Section 5(14) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, expired on 14.12.2025 — without any extension being validly approved and without any resolution plan being placed for voting.

Premature Disclosure of Valuation Figures

A significant regulatory compliance issue surfaced during this phase. At the 7th CoC meeting on 10.12.2025, prior to receipt of any resolution plan and prior to execution of confidentiality undertakings, the Resolution Professional disclosed the following figures in the meeting minutes:

"The representative of Canara Bank asked the RP whether he can discuss the valuation figures in the meeting so that necessary action can be taken. The representatives of SBI and UV ARC agreed to share the confidentiality undertaking after the meeting. The RP informed that the fair value approximately Rs. 13 crores and the liquidation value is about Rs. 8 crores."

This disclosure was noted by the NCLAT as a clear non-compliance with Regulation 35 of the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, which mandates confidentiality of fair value and liquidation value figures until requisite undertakings are obtained.

Post-Expiry Developments

Following the CIRP expiry, the following events occurred:

• The appellant (suspended partner of the corporate debtor) obtained a non-binding offer for investment and revival, accompanied by a cheque dated 12.12.2025 for ₹10 lakhs, and expressed readiness to offer a value exceeding the liquidation value of ₹8 crores
• On 18.12.2025, the appellant invoked Section 240A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (MSME provisions) and sought an opportunity to submit a resolution plan
• On 19.12.2025, one Mr. Heemanshu Shah also expressed interest in submitting a resolution plan

8th CoC Meeting and RP's Application

A notice for the 8th CoC meeting was issued on 26.12.2025 and the meeting was eventually held on 29.12.2025. The CoC unanimously passed a resolution authorising the Resolution Professional to approach the NCLT for directions regarding either extension of the CIRP with fresh Form G publication or initiation of liquidation.