TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (6) TMI 73
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Intervener. ORDER ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. These two appeals have been filed by the suspended director of the corporate debtors; Parsvnath Developers Limited and Noida Marketing Private Limited, respectively. The Parsvnath Developers Limited is the principal borrower with respect to which Noida Marketing Private Limited has given corporate guarantee. By order dated 24.04.2026, Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process ("CIRP") against the corporate debtor, Noida Marketing Pvt. Ltd. has commenced, against which the Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No.977/2026 has been filed. By order dated 30.04.2026, CIRP against the corporate debtor, Parsvnath Developers Limited has been admitted by appointing the Interim Resolution Professional ("IRP") and declaring the moratorium. Challenging the order dated 30.04.2026, in C.P. (IB) No.468/PB/2024, Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No.900/2026 has been filed. 2. Brief background facts, giving rise to these two appeals need to be noticed: Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No.900/2026 i. Sammaan Capital Limited, the original lender sanctioned various loan facilities to Parsvnath Developers Limited. First loan facility of Rs. 72 crore was sanctioned on 26.03.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itration Proceeding filed by Parsvnath Developers Limited was dismissed by the Delhi High Court. Parsvnath Developers Limited filed an application under Section 37, challenging the order dated 19.02.2026, on which interim stay was granted on coercive action, subject to Parsvnath Developers Limited deposit Rs. 75 crore in High Court Registry. xiii. On 10.03.2026 Parsvnath Developers Limited deposited only Rs. 25 crore to Delhi High Court. xiv. On 16.03.2026, corporate debtor submitted a repayment plan before the Delhi High Court proposing payment of balance of Rs. 600 crore subject to permission of sale of charge assets. xv. In April 2026, Settlement Repayment Schedule of Rs. 750 crore was exchanged between the parties. On 06.04.2026, NCLT listed Section 7 application for pronouncement of the order on request of the Parsvnath Developers Limited that Parsvnath Developers Limited is proceeding to settle the matter with financial creditor, the pronouncement was deferred. xvi. On 08.04.2026 Parsvnath Developers Limited, shared final schedule of payment with ARCIL. On 08.04.2026 pronouncement was again deferred to 16.04.2026. xvii. On 16.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rs. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant in support of the appeals submits that in the present case, the corporate debtor has entered into settlement with the financial creditor and was always ready and willing to make the payment as per schedule discussed and agreed by both the parties reflected in the email dated 30.12.2024 sent by the corporate debtor to the financial creditor. No default towards payment has been made by the corporate debtor as per settlement agreed. The payment plan as agreed between the parties was noted by the adjudicating authority in its order, dated 17.02.2025, by which Section 7 application was allowed to be withdrawn by the financial creditor. The corporate debtor did not default in payment as per payment schedule agreed on 30.12.2024, but financial creditor unilaterally backed out by issuing an email dated 16.07.2025. The present is not a case where any default is committed by the corporate debtor in fulfilling its obligation. It is submitted that during pendency of the proceedings under Section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act 1996, before the Delhi High Court corporate debtor has undertaken to pay Rs. 75 crore. Rs. 25 crore was deposited bef....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al. A pre-injunction proceeding was filed before the Delhi High Court for staying proceeding before the NCLT to revive the Section 7 application, in which proceeding no interim relief was granted by the High Court. Even after order dated 20.08.2025, reviving the Section 7 application, the order dated 20.08.2025 was challenged by the corporate debtor before the Delhi High Court, which also came to be dismissed by judgement dated 23.09.2025. Submission of the counsel for the appellant that there was no basis for revival of Section 7 application are without any merit. Revival of Section 7 has become final and cannot be allowed to question. It is submitted that Delhi High Court orders passed in proceeding initiated by corporate debtor itself under Section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act 1996, noted that corporate debtor is endeavouring to settle the dispute with the financial creditor, which is clear proof of default. Before the adjudicating authority also time and again, corporate debtor submitted that it is entering into settlement with the financial creditor. Adjudicating Authority on several occasions has postponed the pronouncement of the judgement at the request of the co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ges which include: i. Principal amount Rs. 452,34,19,608/ (Rupees Four Hundred and Fifty-Two Crores, Thirty-Four Lacs, Nineteen Thousand, Six Hundred and Eight) ii. Interest Due: 26,59,51,243/- (Rupees Twenty-Six Crore, Fifty-Nine Lacs, Fifty-One Thousand, Two Hundred and Forty-Three). iii. Other Charges: 438,32,90,363/- (Rupees Four Hundred and Thirty- Eight Crore, Thirty-Two Lacs, Ninety Thousand, Three Hundred and Sixty-Three). iv. TDS: 25,00,31,782 (Rupees Twenty-Five Crore, Thirty-One Thousand, Seven Hundred and Eighty-Two) C. Date of Default: On 05.05.2024, Corporate Debtor defaulted in payment/repayment of principal and/or interest due under the Loan Agreement D. Under clause 3.1.1 of the Loan Agreements, the Corporate Debtor agreed to repay/pay the entire loan and interest thereon to the Financial Creditor in such manner as agreed/specified by the Financial Creditor from time to time and/or as per the Payment/Repayment Schedule. E. Accordingly, owing to the Corporate Debtor's default in payments under the loan facilities, on 08.07.2024, Financial Creditor issued notices recalling the entire loan facilities and called upon the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rporate debtor, pronouncement was deferred. It is useful to notice the order passed by the NCLT, by which pronouncement of judgement was deferred. Adjudicating authority has noted the order passed on 08.04.2026 deferring the pronouncement in paragraph 19 of the judgement which is as follows: "19. On account of pendency of the proceedings before Hon'ble High Court as above, we could show sufficient indulgence and kept the proceedings pending for sufficiently long period. Even on 08.04.2026, when we were to pronounce the order, having come across the plea raised on behalf of the parties with reference to order dated 08.04.2026 (ibid), we deferred the pronouncement. The order dated 08.04.2026 reads thus:- "On 06.04.2026 we passed by the following order:- "(IB)-468(PB)2024 was listed for the pronouncement of the order therein. Nevertheless, Mr. Manoranjan Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the Corporate Debtor submitted that the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court has passed an order that another amount of Rs. 25 Crores could be deposited by the Debtor with the registry of Hon'ble Delhi High Court would be released to the Creditor. According to him, another amount ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gned order, which is as follows: "21. On 16.04.2026, again the counsels for the parties made reference to the proceedings pending before the Hon'ble High Court and sought adjournment. As it may have a due deference to the proceedings pending before Hon'ble High Court, we again deferred the pronouncement to 30.04.2026. The order dated 16.04.2026 reads thus: "When the matter is listed for pronouncement, Mr. Abhishek Anand Ld. Counsel for the Applicant submitted that they are negotiating with the Creditor for settlement in respect of the amount defaulted to be paid. According to him the proposal given by the Debtor could not be taken up by the Creditor with its board for consideration. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the board qua the petitioner will take two weeks' time to meet and take a final view regarding the proposal for settlement. It is really a matter of concern that when the matter is listed for pronouncement thrice, the parties are taking no steps in between and only when the matter is listed for pronouncement of the order, only before the Court they talk of settlement. We are appalled and dismayed with such approach. However, since the objec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the reply filed on behalf of the Respondents, their emphasis is on reconciliation of loan accounts, consideration of deductions, settlement between the parties and pendency of arbitral proceedings. So far as the reconciliation of loan accounts and adjustment of deductions are concerned, at best, the same can be considered as counter claim by the CD. As has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in B. Prashanth Hegde vs. State Bank of India and Anr. (Civil Appeal No. 477 of 2022) decided on 12.02.2026, the Hon'ble Supreme Court ruled that in so far as set off and counter claim is concerned, the same may be considered at the stage of filing of proof of claims during the resolution process by the RP. Para 37 of the judgment reads thus: "37. In Swiss Ribbons (P) Ltd. case (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in so far as set-off and counterclaim is concerned, such set-off may be considered at the stage of filing of proof of claims during the resolution process by the Resolution Professional. In the present appeal, only counter claim has been made before DRT but no set off amount has been adjudicated upon. Moreover, any amount of counterclaim cannot retract from the fac....