1. In Ramachandran Subramanian v. Tecpro Systems Limited (Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 267 of 2026), the NCLAT dismissed the appeal preferred by the erstwhile liquidator challenging his replacement, by observing that a liquidator does not possess any personal or vested right to continue in the office, and performance during the tenure, even if commendable, did not create an indefeasible right. It was observed that the liquidator would lack the locus to maintain an appeal as he would not be a ‘person aggrieved’ within the meaning of Section 61 of the Code merely by virtue of being replaced by the Adjudicating Authority.
The NCLAT also examined whether Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited (“EARCL“) would qualify as a…