![CoC Impleaded in Reserved NCLT Application on Inclusion of Its Member, NCLAT and NCLT Orders Set Aside on Consent: Supreme Court in Committee of Creditors of Think and Learn v. Riju Ravindran [2026 INSC 1046]](/assets/images/article-corporate.svg)
Quick Answer: On the consent of all parties, the Supreme Court allowed the Committee of Creditors of Think and Learn Private Limited to be impleaded in IA No.466 of 2025 pending before the NCLT, set aside the NCLAT's order and the NCLT's order refusing impleadment, and directed the NCLT to list the reserved application within two weeks and decide it expeditiously after hearing the CoC.
In The Committee of Creditors of Think and Learn Private Limited v. Riju Ravindran & Ors. (2026 INSC 1046), the Supreme Court, on consent of all parties, directed that the Committee of Creditors (CoC) be impleaded in IA No.466 of 2025 before the NCLT and set aside both the NCLAT's impugned order and the NCLT's order dated 26.08.2025 in IA No.495 of 2025 (paras 4–6). A Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran directed the NCLT to place the reserved application on board within two weeks and dispose of it expeditiously after hearing the CoC (para 5).
Status: Appeal allowed on consent; NCLAT's impugned order and NCLT's order dated 26.08.2025 in IA No.495 of 2025 set aside; IA No.495 of 2025 allowed impleading the CoC (paras 5–7).
Headnote: CoC Impleaded in Reserved NCLT Application
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process – Committee of Creditors – Resolution Professional – Impleadment of CoC – Inclusion/exclusion of a member of the CoC – Consent order – Expeditious disposal by NCLT.
Held: (i) The NCLT had held that the CoC was not an independent entity and only the Resolution Professional could represent it, and found its impleadment in IA No.466 of 2025 unnecessary (para 2).
(ii) The NCLAT held that the IBC constitutes the CoC and the RP as different entities with different roles and specific responsibilities, but still affirmed that the CoC was not a necessary party in IA No.466 of 2025 (para 2).
(iii) The 1st respondent, Director of the Corporate Debtor, did not contest the appeal and had no objection to the CoC being impleaded; IA No.466 of 2025 had been reserved for orders a year earlier and matters were not moving due to the stay (para 4).
(iv) On consent of all parties, the CoC is to be impleaded in IA No.466 of 2025, which shall be listed before the NCLT within two weeks and disposed of expeditiously after hearing the CoC (paras 5–6).
(paras 1–7)
Case Details: CoC of Think and Learn Pvt. Ltd. v. Riju Ravindran (2026 INSC 1046)
Final Outcome: Appeal allowed on consent; NCLAT's impugned order and NCLT's order dated 26.08.2025 in IA No.495 of 2025 set aside; CoC impleaded in IA No.466 of 2025; NCLT directed to list the matter within two weeks and decide it expeditiously.
Case: The Committee of Creditors of Think and Learn Private Limited v. Riju Ravindran & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1046
Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 2594 of 2026
Court: Supreme Court of India (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction) – Non-Reportable
Date of Decision: 21 September 2026
Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran (Order; no named author)
Relevant Acts & Sections: Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process; roles of the Committee of Creditors and the Resolution Professional
Impugned Order: Order of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal affirming the NCLT's order in IA No.495 of 2025 in Company Petition (IB) No.149 of 2023 dated 26.08.2025 (paras 2, 5)
Counsel: Mr. Amit Sibal, Senior Advocate, for the appellant; Mr. Rohan Thawani for the 1st respondent; Mr. Dhruv Mehta, Senior Advocate, for the Resolution Professional; Mr. Kapil Sibal, Senior Advocate, for the 4th respondent (para 3)
Source: Supreme Court of India (official website)
Key Holdings of the Supreme Court
- On consent of all parties, the CoC is impleaded in IA No.466 of 2025 pending before the NCLT (paras 5–6).
- The NCLAT's impugned order and the NCLT's order dated 26.08.2025 in IA No.495 of 2025 were set aside to facilitate the impleadment and hearing (para 5).
- The reserved IA No.466 of 2025 is to be placed on board before the NCLT within two weeks, and the NCLT is directed to dispose of it expeditiously after hearing the CoC (para 5).
- The 1st respondent, Director of the Corporate Debtor, stated that he was not contesting the appeal and had no objection to the CoC's impleadment (para 4).
Brief Facts of the Case
In the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process of Think and Learn Private Limited, the Committee of Creditors filed IA No.495 of 2025 before the NCLT seeking impleadment, especially to put forth its arguments on the inclusion or exclusion of one of its members, the 4th respondent (para 1).
The NCLT found the CoC not to be an independent entity and held that only the Resolution Professional could represent it. It found the CoC's impleadment in IA No.466 of 2025 unnecessary (para 2).
On appeal, the NCLAT held that the IBC constitutes the CoC and the RP as different entities with different roles and specific responsibilities, but affirmed the NCLT's view that the CoC was not a necessary party in IA No.466 of 2025. The Supreme Court had granted a stay in the matter (para 2).
At the hearing, counsel for the 1st respondent, the Director of the Corporate Debtor, informed the Court that he was not contesting the appeal. It was pointed out that IA No.466 of 2025 had been reserved for orders a year earlier and matters were not moving because of the stay (para 4).
Issues Before the Supreme Court
- Whether the Committee of Creditors should be impleaded in IA No.466 of 2025 concerning the inclusion or exclusion of one of its members (paras 1–2).
- How the reserved application, stalled by the stay, should be taken forward (paras 4–5).
Court's Findings and Reasoning
Findings below (para 2): The NCLT treated the CoC as not an independent entity represented only by the RP. The NCLAT recognised the CoC and RP as different entities with different roles, but still held the CoC not a necessary party in IA No.466 of 2025.
Concession by the 1st respondent (para 4): The Director of the Corporate Debtor, on specific instructions, did not contest the appeal and had no objection to the CoC being impleaded and heard in IA No.466 of 2025.
Consent order (para 5): On consent of all parties, the Court directed that IA No.466 of 2025, reserved for orders, be placed on board before the NCLT within two weeks, that the CoC be impleaded and heard, and that the NCLT dispose of the matter expeditiously.
Orders set aside (paras 5–6): To facilitate the impleadment and hearing, the Court set aside the NCLAT's order and the NCLT's order dated 26.08.2025 in IA No.495 of 2025, and allowed IA No.495 of 2025.
Final Outcome and Directions
- IA No.466 of 2025 shall be placed on board before the NCLT within two weeks, and the appellant CoC shall be impleaded in it (para 5).
- The CoC may be heard expeditiously, and the NCLT shall dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible (para 5).
- The NCLAT's impugned order and the NCLT's order dated 26.08.2025 in IA No.495 of 2025 in Company Petition (IB) No.149 of 2023 are set aside (para 5).
- IA No.495 of 2025 stands allowed, impleading the CoC (para 6).
- Appeal allowed; pending applications rejected (paras 7–8).
Legal Principle Laid Down
The order is a consent order and does not decide whether a Committee of Creditors is a necessary party in proceedings concerning the inclusion or exclusion of its members. Where all parties consent, the Supreme Court may set aside orders refusing the CoC's impleadment, permit the CoC to be heard, and direct the NCLT to decide a long-pending reserved application expeditiously.
Precedents Relied Upon
- No precedent is cited in the order.
Important Paragraphs of the Judgment
Verbatim extracts from the judgment. For the full text, refer to the judgment PDF below.
Para 2: "The Tribunal found the CoC to be not an independent entity and held that only the Resolution Professional (RP) can represent the CoC."
Para 4: "It is pointed out that IA No.466 of 2025 was reserved for orders a year back and since there is a stay operating, matters are not moving."
Para 5: "On consent of all parties, we direct that IA No.466 of 2025, which is reserved for orders, be placed on board of the NCLT on any date within two weeks from today and the appellant CoC be impleaded therein."
Para 5: "To facilitate such impleadment and hearing, we set aside the impugned order of the NCLAT."
Practical Impact of the Ruling
- For Committees of Creditors: A CoC that seeks to be heard on the inclusion or exclusion of its own member can be impleaded where all parties consent (paras 1, 5).
- For Resolution Professionals: The RP does not necessarily speak alone for the CoC in such proceedings; the NCLAT had recognised them as different entities (para 2).
- For the NCLT: Applications reserved for long periods should be listed and decided expeditiously once a stay is lifted (paras 4–5).
FAQs on CoC Impleadment in Think and Learn CIRP
1. What did the Supreme Court decide in CoC of Think and Learn Private Limited v. Riju Ravindran?
On consent of all parties, it directed that the CoC be impleaded in IA No.466 of 2025 before the NCLT, set aside the NCLAT's and NCLT's orders refusing impleadment, and directed expeditious disposal (paras 5–6).
2. Why did the CoC seek impleadment?
To put forth its arguments on the inclusion or exclusion of one of its members, the 4th respondent (para 1).
3. What had the NCLT and NCLAT held?
The NCLT held that the CoC was not an independent entity and only the RP could represent it. The NCLAT held that the CoC and RP are different entities with different roles, but agreed that the CoC was not a necessary party (para 2).
4. Why was the order passed by consent?
The Director of the Corporate Debtor said he was not contesting the appeal and had no objection to the CoC being impleaded, as the reserved application had been stalled for a year due to the stay (para 4).
5. How soon must the NCLT take up the matter?
IA No.466 of 2025 must be placed on board within two weeks, and the NCLT must dispose of it as expeditiously as possible (para 5).
Keywords: 2026 INSC 1046, Committee of Creditors of Think and Learn Private Limited v. Riju Ravindran, CoC impleadment, Resolution Professional, CIRP, NCLT IA No.466 of 2025, NCLAT, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, consent order, Justice J.B. Pardiwala, Justice K. Vinod Chandran, Supreme Court non-reportable judgment
Related on LegalTaxGuru
Download Judgment PDF – CoC of Think and Learn Private Limited v. Riju Ravindran
Source: Supreme Court of India (official website).