In respect of an order of the adjudicating authority regarding approval of the resolution plan it was informed by a practicing lawyer to Rinku that appeal before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) can on

The statement made by the practicing lawyer to Rinku is incorrect on both counts, in light of the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). Let's examine the correctness of each part of the statement: 1. Appeal Period for Orders Other Than Resolution Plan Approval: Lawyer's Statement: Appeal before NCLAT can only be filed within 30 days of receipt of the order in case of matters other than approval of the resolution plan. IBC Provision (Section 61): Section 61 of the IBC states that any person aggrieved by an order of the Adjudicating Authority (AA) under Part II of the Code may prefer an appeal to the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT). This appeal must be filed within thirty days from the date of receipt of the order. Extension: The NCLAT may allow an appeal to be filed after the expiry of the 30-day period, but within a further period of fifteen days , if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the initial 30 days. Conclusion: The lawyer's statement regarding the 30-day limit for other matters is generally correct, but it omits the possibility of a 15-day extension. 2. Challenge to Approved Resolution Plan: Lawyer's Statement: Once the resolution plan is approved by the adjudicating authority, it cannot be challenged at all. IBC Provision (Section 61(3)): This part of the statement is definitively incorrect. Section 61(3) explicitly provides grounds on which an appeal against an order approving a resolution plan (under Section 31) may be filed before the NCLAT. These grounds are: The approved resolution plan is in contravention of the provisions of any law for the time being in force. There has been a material irregularity in the exercise of the powers by the resolution professional during the corporate insolvency resolution period. The debts owed to operational creditors of the corporate debtor have not been provided for in the resolution plan in the manner specified by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India ('Board'). The insolvency resolution process costs have not been provided for repayment in priority to all other debts. The resolution plan does not comply with any other criteria specified by the Board. Conclusion: An approved resolution plan can indeed be challenged before the NCLAT, but only on the specific grounds enumerated in Section 61(3). Overall Conclusion: The statement made by the practicing lawyer is not correct , particularly regarding the absolute finality of an approved resolution plan. Appeals are permissible on specified grounds within the prescribed timelines.