NCLAT rejects ED plea to recall order in Adel Landmarks insolvency case
The NCLAT rejected the Enforcement Directorate's plea to recall its April order that revived Adel Landmarks' resolution plan, holding the ED should have appealed instead.
Key points
- The NCLAT on 2 November 2026 rejected the Enforcement Directorate's application to recall its order of 16 April 2026.
- That order sent Adel Landmarks' resolution plan back to the NCLT, which approved it on 19 May 2026; the ED had not appealed either order.
- The NCLAT held its April order did not stay or set aside the ED's provisional attachment, and the ED sought a review in the guise of a recall.
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) on 2 November 2026 rejected an application by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to recall its order of 16 April 2026 in the insolvency of Adel Landmarks Ltd. That order had revived the resolution plan of Art Construction Pvt. Ltd. for the company, which the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) went on to approve on 19 May 2026.
What Happened
Adel Landmarks was admitted into the corporate insolvency resolution process on 5 December 2018, and its committee of creditors approved the plan on 15 September 2022, per the order. On 9 January 2026, while the plan awaited approval, the ED issued a provisional attachment order on some of the company's assets. The NCLT then sent the plan back to the creditors on 27 February 2026, partly because of the attachment. The NCLAT set that aside on 16 April 2026, noting Section 32A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, which shields a company and its assets from action over offences committed before insolvency once a plan is approved and control changes hands.
The ED argued it was not heard before the April order and that the attached properties could not form part of the plan. The NCLAT held that the ED knew of the order by 16 May 2026 but did not appeal to the Supreme Court, and did not challenge the plan approval either, filing the recall only on 20 July 2026. It said the April order did not stay or set aside the ED's attachment and passed no adverse direction against it, and that the ED was seeking a review on merits, which a recall cannot provide.
What It Means
The approved plan, which the respondents told the tribunal is under implementation, stands. The NCLAT noted that a plan approved and not challenged in time binds all stakeholders, including government authorities. An ED provisional attachment is an allegation-stage step that must be confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority under the PMLA. These are allegations, not findings of guilt; the accused are presumed innocent until proven guilty in court, and due process continues. The order may be appealed to the Supreme Court.
Source: NCLAT order
Sources & Citations
- NCLAT order — National Company Law Appellate Tribunal