TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 1848
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dvocates for SRA Mr. Abhishek Anand, Mr. Karan Kohli, Ms. Palak Kalia, Mr. Manoj, Ms. Ridhima Malhotra, Ms. Shruti Srivastva, Advocates for RP Mr. Navneet Gupta, RP in person Mr. Anant Gautam, Mr. Aman Gahlot, Mr. Rishi Chauhan, Advocates for Indian Bank JUDGMENT Justice Yogesh Khanna, Officiating Chairperson This Appeal is filed against an impugned order dated 14.08.2026 passed by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), New Delhi, Court-V (Special Bench) in IA No.3899 of 2026, IA No.987 of 2023 and IA No.1222 of 2026 whereby new IA No.3899 of 2026, a short, time bound adjournment application filed by the Appellant came to be dismissed with costs of Rs.1,00,000/- and thereafter the Ld. Adjudicating ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s application is moved by the Suspended Board seeking adjournment. First prayer is to adjourn the hearing of the proceedings in CP (IB) No. 1913(ND)/2019. Second prayer is pending such adjournment to pass no final or prejudicial order in any interlocutory application which is participated by the RP. We are of the view that the Applicant is having no locus standi to ask for sweeping adjournment in pending matters. Secondly, there is no proof that any such undertaking has been given by the IBBI that disciplinary proceedings shall be disposed of within 2 weeks'. Thirdly the Applicant has filed no proof that any order concerning the matter before us has been passed in Writ Petition No. 9559 of 2026. Fourthly, the Applicant has not been able....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... we need to note IA No.1222 of 2026 which formed the basis of IA No.3899 of 2026, has already been withdrawn by the Respondent No.3. Further, it would be appropriate to note the observations made by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority in paragraphs 7 to 11 expressing its anguish upon how the process is being derailed by the Appellant herein. Paragraphs 7 to 11 of the impugned order are as under:- "7. Before we proceed to examine the merits of the application, we find it appropriate to record certain observations which are as below: (i) The Company Petition filed under Section 7 against CD Nimitya Hotel & Resorts Ltd. was admitted into insolvency in December, 2021; Since the admission order a number of IAs have been and are bein....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... instant application. (iv) The history further tell us that every time this matter comes before us, some new IA is filed not for genuine adjudication but for the purpose that precious times of the Court is lost in dealing with the new IA in supplementary list leaving limited time for other applications to be taken up. (v) A look at the statistics may be a useful indicator. More than 80 Interlocutory Application have been filed in the present matter up till now, out of which more than 50 have been disposed, rest are pending. Since the assignment of this matter to this Special Bench in January 2026, six hearing since then, 14 new IAs have been filed. 6 IAs have been filed by the Suspended Board alone since the matter came be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y, however, he insisted that he should be heard in detail covering all the aspects of the matter including matter of appointment/removal of R.P. and his role. 10. During the course of hearing, his attitude was overbearing and he kept on harping on extraneous matter and also commented that this Special Bench was regularly sitting at 02:30pm, for this matter on every hearing date and that he does not understand why this matter is being heard at 10:30 am today. He further said that, he had to appear before the Principal Bench and that he has been hindered because this bench chose to sit at 10:30 am rather than in post lunch session. He also said that because of change in timings, he faced difficulties without elaborating much as to wh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ibunal to be considered along with Resolution Plan as has been noticed above and CoC in its 14th CoC meeting has already considered the Resolution Plan along with settlement proposal submitted by Respondent No. 1. Thus the facts of the present case are entirely different where the Settlement proposal submitted by Respondent No.1 has already been considered by the CoC, the above Judgment does not help the Respondent No.1 in the present case." 8.3. Vide the above judgment, the request of the Appellant to consider his settlement proposal was rejected as was already considered by the CoC. Civil Appeal No.602-603 of 2024 against this order dated 08.01.2024 was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is the submission of Respondents th....