2026 (4) TMI 437

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Sharma, Member (Judicial) The Appellant, who happens to be the Suspended Director of the Corporate Debtor, M/s. Hamsa Dairy Private Limited, has questioned the impugned order as it was passed by the Ld. NCLT, which has consequentially resulted into Admission of Section 7 application, as against the Corporate Debtor. During the proceedings of the application, IA (IBC) 296/2025, the Appellant had contended that the application under Section 7 of the Code, is barred by limitation, and that the debt due is below the prescribed limit of the threshold as prescribed under Section 4 of the I & B Code. 2. The Ld. Tribunal by virtue of the impugned order, has ultimately observed that owing to the facts and evidence that has been brought on rec....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 2 with the following breakups: (i) DD No. 829053, dated 06.01.2026, drawn on DBS Bank India Limited in favour of SIDBI. The said draft referred to an amount of Rs. 50 lakhs. (ii) Another amount of Rs. 30 lakh was deposited by the appellant through Demand Draft No. 537672 dated 12.01.2026, which too was drawn on DBS Bank India Limited in favour of SIDBI. 6. After making the aforesaid deposits, the Appellant has submitted that he had approached Respondent No. 2 and by making reference to the aforesaid deposits that was made, which was also brought to the knowledge of the Ld. Tribunal by filing a memo to the said effect on 22.02.2026, in view of the undertaking taken by the Appellant on 28.01.2026, he has taken steps for....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....to be remitted. But the Ld. Counsel for the Appellant in the memo thus filed has submitted that all these amounts payable under the aforesaid heads, has been included by the Appellant in the Settlement offers made by him as would be apparent from the email communication dated 20.01.2026 and the entire CIRP cost and expenses incurred by the Respondent No. 2, too has been paid by the Appellant, when the aforesaid Rs. 2.25 crore was paid to the Respondent No. 2, in pursuance to the order passed by this Appellate Tribunal. 9. Owing to the statement made in the memorandum submitted by the Appellant in extension of his argument to the objection raised by the Ld. Counsel for the Respondent, the Ld. Counsel for the Respondent did not have any va....