Published: · Source checked:
In Debashis Nanda v. Stakeholders' Consultation Committee, NCLAT held that a going-concern sale had commenced when the liquidation order incorporated the CoC's recommendation and directed that route. The later absence of an auction notice did not remove the process from the 2025 amendment's saving. The decision depended on the actual order and chronology. Judgment, paragraphs 34–50.
Order and timeline
| Point | Verified record |
|---|---|
| Tribunal | NCLAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi |
| Members | Justice Mohammad Faiz Alam Khan and Naresh Salecha |
| Appeal | Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1297 of 2026 |
| Order date | |
| Corporate debtor | Chamber Constructions Private Limited |
| Liquidation order | 21 February 2024 |
| Challenged order | NCLT Mumbai Bench-I, 3 July 2026, IA No. 2697(MB)/2026 in CP(IB) No. 3962(MB)/2018 |
| Result | Appeal allowed; refusal of extension/permission set aside; further action left to NCLT in accordance with law |
The tribunal recorded a further appearance before NCLT on 26 October 2026. This is the historical direction in the judgment, not confirmation of what happened on that date or a new appointment for readers. Paragraph 52.
The saving question was more precise than whether an auction had occurred
The dispute concerned the IBBI (Liquidation Process) (Second Amendment) Regulations, 2025, effective 14 October 2025. As the NCLAT explained, the amendment omitted Regulation 32A and the relevant going-concern clauses of Regulation 32 while saving cases in which liquidation by sale as a going concern had already commenced.
NCLT had treated issuance of an auction notice or finalisation of the Asset Sale Process Document as the commencing event. NCLAT rejected that approach in this case. It found no basis for inserting those particular requirements into the saving clause. Paragraphs 28–36.
This note analyses the transition question decided by the appellate tribunal. It does not present the omitted provisions as an unrestricted route for newly commenced processes, or certify every subsequent regulatory amendment.
Why the February 2024 liquidation order mattered
The CoC's recommendation under the historical Regulation 39C of the CIRP Regulations had been placed before NCLT and incorporated into the liquidation order. That order directed the liquidator to endeavour a going-concern sale. The recommendation had therefore become part of an operative judicial direction, rather than remaining an unimplemented private preference.
NCLAT treated the later sale steps—SCC deliberation, reserve price, marketing, auction documentation and publication—as links implementing that existing direction. On those facts, commencement could not be located only at the later advertisement stage. Paragraphs 35 and 39–44.
The qualification is essential. The article does not say that every liquidation order, whatever it provides, automatically commences every possible method of sale. It is the incorporation of this recommendation and the direction to pursue this route that supplied the connection.
Judicial restraint explained the missing auction notice
The liquidator had been restrained from issuing an auction notice from 28 May 2024 until 11 May 2026. NCLT had separately excluded that period in another application. NCLAT considered it wrong to use the missing notice against the liquidator when a judicial order had prohibited its issue.
The appellate tribunal also acknowledged that the initial ninety-day period had elapsed before the restraint. It treated that period, in this order requiring an endeavour, as extendable by the authority that fixed it. The record showed steps taken within the period and delay connected with the litigation. This was not a general exemption from all statutory liquidation deadlines. Paragraphs 45–50.
Relief was reconsideration under the proper regime, not a completed sale
The appeal succeeded and the challenged order was set aside. The parties were directed back to NCLT for further action in accordance with law. The judgment did not identify a successful purchaser, approve final sale terms or declare that a transfer had already completed. Paragraph 52.
The NCLAT agreed with the approach it described in Garden Court and examined the application of that reasoning to this record. This article reports that use of precedent; it does not independently audit every later decision concerning the saving.
What a transition file should establish
Veritect's analysis suggests collecting the CoC recommendation, the actual liquidation-order language, the regulatory amendment and saving, the pre-amendment implementation steps, and any restraint orders. Those documents answer different questions. A calendar date alone does not show what process had started, and an absent auction notice alone does not explain why it was absent.
For an objector, the same file permits a concrete distinction: was the proposed route actually incorporated into the order, what steps followed, and does the precise saving cover them? For a liquidator, it shows why the application for extension should explain the legal effect of restraints as well as elapsed time.
Questions practitioners may ask
Was an auction notice necessary to establish commencement here?
No. The NCLAT treated the liquidation order incorporating the recommendation and directing the going-concern route as the commencing event on these facts.
Did the decision revive going-concern sales for every new liquidation?
No. It construed a saving for an already-commenced process. The date and content of this liquidation order were central.
Did allowing the appeal itself complete or approve a sale?
No. The refusal was set aside and further action was left to NCLT. The judgment is not a sale certificate.
Primary source and scope
The official judgment of 7 October 2026, particularly paragraphs 34–52, was checked for this case note. It describes the order as delivered. A targeted official-source search surfaced earlier Chamber Constructions litigation, which cannot establish the subsequent treatment of this October order. A current transaction requires the latest orders and applicable regulatory text.