Weeks after observing that the resolution professional fraternity remained “untouched by contempt” and needed to be “taught a lesson”, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Chennai, has closed suo motu contempt proceedings against interim resolution professional (IRP) Anil Kumar Khicha, in view of his unconditional apology [NCLAT, Chennai Bench v. Anil Kumar Khicha, IRP, ISPT India Pvt Ltd].
A Bench comprising judicial member, retired Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma, and technical member Jatindranath Swain held that although the IRP’s conduct was impermissible, the contempt case will be closed since he has apologised and given an undertaking to exercise caution in future.
"We proceed to accept his unconditional apology with a warning that, he should be cautious in future, while discharging his official responsibilities as an IRP," the NCLAT's January 29 order said.
The dispute began when Indo Shell Mould initiated insolvency proceedings against ISPT India Pvt Ltd, alleging a breach of a settlement agreement from August 2023.
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) originally admitted the company into the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) on September 15, 2025.
However, following an appeal by the suspended director, the NCLAT issued an interim order on October 27, 2025, directing that the insolvency admission be kept in abeyance.
The conflict escalated when the interim RP, Anil Kumar Khicha, allegedly defied the stay order. Despite the NCLT's direction to pause the insolvency process, the IRP sent an email on November 10, 2025, claiming that because the tribunal had not expressly directed him to hand back management, he was not required to return control to the Board of Directors.
The tribunal viewed this as the IRP "sitting over" judicial orders by applying his own alternative interpretation to a clear legal stay.
In a hearing on December 22, 2025, the NCLAT Bench characterised the IRP's conduct as contemptuous and initiated suo motu contempt proceedings against him.
In its January 29 order, the Bench reiterated that once an interim order keeping the impugned NCLT order in abeyance was operating, the IRP could not have proceeded by carving out exceptions or adopting a contrary interpretation of the stay.
The tribunal recorded that the IRP appeared in person, submitted his response, and tendered an unconditional apology, along with an undertaking that he would be cautious in future while interpreting orders and would refrain from acting in violation of the same.
The NCLAT proceeded to close the contempt case in view of the apology, although the tribunal also expressed that it was not satisfied with the reasons the IRP offered to explain his conduct.
Advocate Raghav Rajeev Menon appeared for the IRP.
[Read Order]