TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 764
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....le National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai ("Hon'ble Adjudicating Authority") allowing IA No.2471 of 2021 filed by Respondent No.4- the Resolution Professional of the Corporate Debtor and IA No. 924 of 2021 preferred by Respondent No.1- Bank of India, and further dismissing an IA bearing No.41/2024 preferred by the Appellant seeking that the aforesaid Applications preferred by the Respondent Nos. I and 4 be stayed. Brief facts of the case 2. Company Petition (IB) No. 3962/2018 was filed by Bank of Baroda-Respondent No. 2 against the Corporate Debtor-Chamber Constructions Private Limited under Section 7 of the Code. The CIRP order against the Corporate Debtor was admitted on 16.07.2019. 3. It is brought to our notice that RNA Corp is the holding Company-principal borrower and is also the corporate guarantor of the Corporate Debtor-Chamber Constructions Private Limited. 4. The claim of R1-Bank of India filed [Rs. 81,58,50,645.75/-] in the CIRP of the Corporate Debtor for corporate guarantee furnished by the Corporate Debtor for the loan advanced to one RNA Corp Pvt. Ltd. (RNA Corp) was admitted by R-4-RP. The R-4-RP preferred an application being IA No. 2471 of 2020 on ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nal difficulty, the counsel for the appellant could not remain present. However, the NCLT reserved all the applications for orders and passed the impugned orders on these applications on 21.02.2024. The orders in various applications are as noted below in a summary form: I.A. No. Filed By Particulars of the Application Allowed/ Rejected 2471/ 2020 Respondent No. 4 An application under Section 33 of the Code, seeking for an order of liquidation in respect of the Corporate Debtor. Allowed 924 / 2021 Respondent No.1 An Application proposing name of the Liquidator. Allowed 1296/ 2021 Appellant /Applicants An application by the members of the suspended bord seeking extension of time for the consideration of their OTS proposal by the CoC. Rejected 95/2022 Appellant/ Suspended Board of CD For seeking to convene a CoC meeting for facilitation of the settlement process between the Applicants and the Financial Creditors. Rejected 4668/ 2023 Appellant/ Suspended Board of CD Seeling rejection of claim of Respondent No.1 (Bank of India) on the ground of being barred by limitation. Rejected 41/2024 Anubhav Aggarwal- Su....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ctors of the CD in CA 1047 of 2024. 2. Be that as it may, the Financial Creditor namely, M/s. Omkara Assets Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd., moved the Adjudicating Authority seeking a direction to the erstwhile Directors of the CD to handover possession of the secured assets to it through the liquidator. This was ordered but with a clarification. The learned Adjudicating Authority had directed the erstwhile CD to handover the possession to the liquidator, etc. but injuncted the financial creditor from selling the same. This has now given rise to two Appeals. The financial creditor has preferred CA 2118 of 2024 challenging that part of the Order of the Adjudicating Authority restraining him from alienating the secured assets, whereas the promoter directors have filed CA 1861 of 2024 challenging the Order directing delivery of the secured assets to the liquidator. 3. The learned Counsel for the appellant in CA 2118 of 2024 submitted on instructions that the financial creditor would work out its remedies in CA 1047 of 2024 and CA 1861 of 2024. The learned Counsel is permitted to withdraw CA 2118 of 2024. 4. So far as CA 1047 of 2024 is concerned, the Counsel for th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng on this statement, this Tribunal had ordered Notice. However, subsequent to this Order, on 29.08.2024, this Tribunal had passed an Order in Asha Chopra and Ors. vs Hind Motors India Ltd. and others [Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No.1425 to 1428 of 2024] held as below: "14. Section 12A was inserted in IBC with effect from 06.06.2018, ie., much subsequent to the above Judgment. 15. Statutory Scheme as delineated by 12A, Section 33 and Regulation 2B of the Liquidation Regulation, during Liquidation period, an Application under Section 12A is not permissible." When the law has been subsequently settled by this Tribunal that Section 12A benefit is not available in liquidation proceedings, necessarily the foundation for issuing the very notice in this Appeal goes. However, he concurred with the Counsel for the appellant vis-à-vis the issue involved, the matter is now pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and that it is in part-heard stage. 7. Turning to CA 1861 of 2024, the Counsel for the first respondent/financial creditor submitted that the erstwhile Directors of the CD have only challenged the Order directing the delivery of property b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e NCLAT dated 28th May, 2024 is the Order passed in CA 1047 of 2024. In CA 1861 of 2024, second respondent/liquidator has already indicated that he would not be filing its Reply whereas Counsel for the first respondent/financial creditor has already filed its Reply. The appellant is required to file its Rejoinder, if any, to the Reply of Respondent No.1 on or before 16th September, 2025. List on 19th September, 2025. Interim Order to continue." 12. Thereafter on 19.09.2025, it was ordered that CA (AT)Ins) No. 2118/2024 is dismissed as withdrawn, which could not be recorded in the order dated 04.09.2025. And it was ordered that the arguments will be continued as the present proceedings are not likely to be affected by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the issue indicated by the Appellant. 13. On 19.11.2025, the following order were passed: "19.11.2025: Pleadings are complete. Appellants have also been heard. However, further hearing was halted essentially because of a certain issue which according to the appellant has some bearing on the outcome of this appeal which is now pending adjudication before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. These fa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bunal waits for the order of Supreme Court of India. Therefore, the argument in this case will be resumed by the next posting. 4. Learned Counsel for Omkara Assets Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. submits that by virtue of the interim order passed by this Tribunal the entire liquidation process has come to a halt. Indeed, this order has come to be passed when the appellant cited the pendency of proposal for settlement it is captured in the order dated 28.05.2024: "Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that two Financial Creditors have already expressed their opinion to accept the Settlement given by the Appellant and in fact, mail was sent by the Bank of Baroda that steps be taken for CoC's consideration under 12A. It is submitted that the Appellant has offered the entire principal amount which was claimed by the Bank and now the impugned order has been passed directing liquidation of the corporate debtor. 2. Let 'Notice' be issued to the Respondents through 'Speed Post'. Let the requisites together with process fee be filed within three days from today. The Appellant is required to provide the e-mail address of the Respondents and in that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ancial creditor can claim amounts simultaneously from Principal Borrower and the Guarantor. Having held that the proceeding further in this matter are not barred by the Hon'ble Supreme Court's order in the case of RNA Corp, we do not find any reason not to allow the Insolvency Resolution process to move forward in case of guarantor. Accordingly, we dismiss IA 41/2024 also." 16. We also note that the applicant was himself not present while the IA No 41 of 2024 was being adjudicated. From a plain reading of Rule 48 of NCLT Rules^1, we notice that in case of non-appearance of the applicant, the Tribunal may, in its discretion, either dismiss the application for default or hear and decide it on merit. We do not find that the adjudicating authority has violated any law or any other provisions of law; and by this Appeal the appellant is rather delaying the process of CIRP. We thereafter don't find any infirmity in rejection of IA No. 41 of 2024. 17. Our attention was also brought on the fact that though the appellant has emphasized on the Supreme Court Appeal No. 827-828 of 2021, wherein the aggrieved party has been granted a status quo order, yet the said order is differen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uidation is a scheme under Section 230 of the Companies Act, 2013, as contemplated by Regulation 2B of the Liquidation Regulations. In the above judgement it was very clearly noted that "in view of the clear statutory scheme as delineated by 12A, section 33 of the Code and Regulation 2B of the Liquidation Regulation, we are of the view that during the liquidation period an application under section 12A is not permissible." Hence, the order of liquidation calls for no interference, and if the promoters propose to settle, they may only do so through the statutory Section 230 route of the Company's Act, 2013. 21. We also observe that in the 7th meeting of the Committee of Creditors ("CoC") held on 31.08.2020, the CoC had unanimously resolved to liquidate the Corporate Debtor. This decision was taken as (i) no resolution plans had been received, (ii) none of the prospective resolution applicants sought extension of the timeline for submission of plans. The Appellants were present in the meeting and at no point did they indicate any settlement proposal. Pursuant to the unanimous decision of the CoC, the RP filed IA No. 2471/2020 seeking commencement of liquidation in terms of Section....