NCLAT Redirects IRP Replacement Plea to NCLT in Bhushan Power CIRP

The appellate tribunal disposed of applications seeking replacement of IRP Santanu T. Ray, directing the suspended director to first approach NCLT, with a two-week disposal request.

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal's Principal Bench at New Delhi disposed of two interlocutory applications filed by Devi Singh, suspended director of Atma Ram House Investment Pvt. Ltd., seeking replacement of the Interim Resolution Professional in the corporate insolvency resolution process of Bhushan Power and Steel Ltd. The bench of Justice Yogesh Khanna and Mr. Naresh Salecha found that the applications had not first been moved before the NCLT, and directed the applicant to approach that forum. The bench requested the NCLT to dispose of any such application preferably within two weeks.

The Plea for IRP Replacement

The two applications — I.A. No. 4064 and 4065 of 2026 — were filed in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1812 and 1813 of 2025 respectively. The applicant's case was that the Committee of Creditors had not yet been formed, and that IRP Santanu T. Ray was handling more than ten cases simultaneously. On that basis, it was argued he could not legally be appointed as IRP in these matters and ought to be replaced.

Counsel for the appellant, Ms. Akanksha Nehra and Mr. Varnit Vashistha, pointed to an order dated 20 November 2025 in which the Hon'ble Chairperson had noted that the question of whether the debt in question was a financial debt remained to be examined. A subsequent order dated 30 January 2026 had recorded that CIRP proceedings had already commenced vide order dated 12 November 2025, and that the IRP was enabled to take further steps.

Forum and Jurisdiction

The tribunal's disposal turned on a straightforward procedural point. The bench observed that the applications for replacement of the IRP had not been moved before the NCLT at the first instance. Counsel for the Resolution Professional also submitted that such an application ought to have been moved before the NCLT.

The NCLAT did not examine the merits of the replacement request — whether the IRP's caseload exceeded permissible limits or whether the CoC's non-formation had any bearing on his continuance. Those questions were left open for the NCLT to consider.

Outcome

The bench disposed of I.A. No. 4064 and 4065 of 2026, granting liberty to the applicant to move appropriate applications before the NCLT for replacement of the IRP. The NCLAT requested the NCLT to dispose of any such application preferably within two weeks of filing. Along with these two applications, the bench also disposed of pending I.A. Nos. 7063, 7064, 7065, 7066, 7067, and 7068 of 2025.