March 04, 2026 : The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench at New Delhi, has dismissed an appeal filed by former employees of Rolta India Limited challenging the approval of the company’s resolution plan, holding that the payout made to employees complied with the undertaking recorded by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and the statutory requirements under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC).
The bench comprising Chairperson Justice Ashok Bhushan and Technical Member Barun Mitra passed the judgment on 3 March 2026 in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 241 of 2026, arising from the order of the NCLT Mumbai Bench-I dated 15 December 2025 which had approved the resolution plan of Rolta India Limited.
The appeal was filed by certain former employees, including Mohammed Ismail Ansari, who challenged the NCLT’s decision approving the resolution plan submitted by Ashdan Properties Private Limited. The plan had been approved by the Committee of Creditors (CoC) with 100% voting share during the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) of Rolta India Limited.
According to the case record, the CIRP commenced on 19 January 2023 and the Interim Resolution Professional invited claims from creditors. The appellants, along with other former employees, filed their claims which were admitted and they were included in the list of operational creditors.
During the proceedings before the NCLT, certain employees filed an intervention petition raising concerns regarding payment of their dues under the proposed resolution plan. On 5 December 2025, the Adjudicating Authority recorded a statement that the resolution plan would provide payment to employees to the extent of the higher of (i) twelve months’ salary entitlement or (ii) the percentage of dues payable to unsecured financial creditors.
After the resolution plan was approved, the employees approached the appellate tribunal contending that the payment received by them was not in accordance with the undertaking recorded by the NCLT. They argued that they had received only a small fraction of their twelve months’ salary entitlement. As stated in the appeal, Appellant No.1 had received about 9.22% of the twelve months’ salary dues, while Appellant No.4 had received about 9.69%.
Opposing the appeal, the Resolution Professional submitted that the payout made to employees was in accordance with the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code as well as the order dated 5 December 2025. It was argued that unsecured financial creditors were receiving only 0.96% of their admitted claims under the resolution plan, whereas the employees were receiving a higher percentage of their admitted claims.
The appellate tribunal noted that the resolution plan earmarked ₹1 crore towards payment of employees’ dues. It further observed that the liquidation value of operational creditors, including employees, was nil, and therefore the payment satisfied the minimum requirement under Section 30(2)(b) of the IBC.
The tribunal observed that since unsecured financial creditors were receiving only 0.96% of their claims while the employees were receiving more than that percentage, the payout was in conformity with the undertaking recorded by the Adjudicating Authority on 5 December 2025.
Holding that the resolution plan complied with the statutory framework and the undertaking recorded by the NCLT, the appellate tribunal found no ground to interfere with the order approving the resolution plan. Consequently, the NCLAT dismissed the appeal filed by the employees.
Case Title: Mohammed Ismail Ansari & Ors. vs Dr. Mamta Binani & Anr.
Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 241 of 2026
Coram: Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Barun Mitra (Technical Member)
