NCLAT Affirms Right of Committee of Creditors to Litigate in Its Own Name but Limits Impleadment In Individual Member Disputes

The Hon’ble National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), in its judgment dated February 24, 2026, in Committee of Creditors of Think and Learn Pvt. Ltd. v. Riju Ravindran and Others, addressed the fundamental issue of the legal character of a Committee of Creditors (CoC) and its right to litigate in its own name under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC).

The appeal arose from an order of the Adjudicating Authority dismissing an application filed by the CoC of M/s. Think and Learn Pvt. Ltd. (Think and Learn) to implead itself in a petition filed by a suspended director. The suspended director had sought the removal of M/s. Glas Trust Company LLC (Glas Trust) from the CoC. The Adjudicating Authority had originally held that the CoC lacked legal character and could only be represented by the Resolution Professional (RP), and that the CoC itself does not have any subsisting interest or right to participate in this proceeding as it is not a necessary party to the proceedings.

The Appellant CoC argued that it is an entity statutorily constituted under the IBC and falls within the definition of a “person” under Section 3(23)(g) of the IBC.

The Hon’ble NCLAT, while dismissing the appeal but clarifying the legal position, held as follows:

1. Legal Standing: For the purpose of the working of the IBC, the CoC is a decision-making entity that is permitted to litigate in its own name. Where a multi-member CoC decides unanimously to litigate together, then it may institute such proceedings which may include a petition or an application or an appeal in its name. However, where a multi-member CoC is intended to be arrayed as a respondent, then it is necessary that every member of the CoC is arrayed independently as a respondent, since the one who approaches the tribunal with a grievance may not know whether the members of the CoC intend to litigate together or not.

2. Representation: The NCLAT disagreed with the view that only the RP can represent the CoC, noting that the IBC assigns the CoC and the RP different roles and responsibilities.

3. Impleadment Limits: The CoC is not a necessary or proper party in proceedings challenging the presence of a specific member in the CoC, as each member’s entry into the CoC is based on an independent contractual relationship and financial debt.

The ruling balances pragmatic functionality with jurisprudential principles, affirming that while the CoC is a “statutory contrivance” essential to the insolvency engine, it does not efface the independent identities of the creditors who constitute it. Ultimately, the NCLAT reinforced that a threat to an individual member’s right cannot be construed as a collective threat to the entire CoC. Importantly, the NCLAT confirmed that this functional recognition of the CoC’s right to litigate is intended to prevent chaos and ensure the practical utility of the law, even though the CoC may be impleaded only in cases where it is a necessary or proper party for adjudication.