Tribunals and CommissionsFull Bench(2026) 09 NCLAT CK 2027

Axis Bank Ltd. vs BSR Diagnostic Ltd. & Ors.

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal · Decided on 3 September 2026

HON’BLE JUDGES
Justice Yogesh Khanna, Officiating Chairperson · Barun Mitra, Member (Technical) · Ajai Das Mehrotra, Member (Technical)
CASE NUMBER
Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1566 of 2026 & I.A. No. 6003 of 2026

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 432 words

03.09.2026: This appeal is filed against an impugned order dated 08.07.2026 passed by Ld. NCLT, Cuttack whereby the Ld. NCLT in I.A No. 296 of 2022 has imposed a cost of Rs. 2 lakhs upon the Appellant as they failed to repay/refund the amount received from the SRA and also because of its non-appearance and non-filing of the reply to I.A No. 296 of 2022.

2.

Initially, the resolution plan was approved on 22.01.2019 but the first SRA defaulted in payments and made only some part payments, including an amount of Rs. 3,50,89,990/- to the Appellant herein. Thus later, on 09.03.2022 liquidation was ordered by the Ld. NCLT and the Liquidator was also directed to forfeit the amounts paid by the SRA and to put in the liquidation estate.

3.

Since the aforesaid amount stood paid to the Appellant herein, hence, I.A No. 296 of 2022 was filed to seek the refund of the said amount.

4.

Vide order dated 08.07.2026, the Ld. NCLT observed that since the Appellant had failed to repay/refund the amount received as above and even failed to file reply to I.A No. 296 of 2020, he was imposed a cost of Rs. 2 lakhs.

5.

It is the submission of the Ld. Sr. Counsel for the Appellant there was never any direction to the Appellant to refund the said amount but in any case, to avoid any controversy, he has taken instructions to say the Appellant shall deposit the aforesaid amount with the Liquidator, without prejudice to its right to contest I.A No. 296 of 2022 within three weeks from today. Since, it is the case of the Appellant there was no order qua refund/repayment of the said amount and only direction in the order dated 09.03.2022 was with regard to forfeiture of the amount, hence, they did not refund the said amount but in any case, now they have voluntarily agreed to deposit the amount, without prejudice to its right and hence in the event of deposit of the above said amount within three weeks from today, the cost as imposed upon the Appellant shall stand waived. The impugned order to this extent is modified. Since the impugned order notes I.A No. 296 of 2022 is still pending, the Appellant is free to raise his contention qua the said application before the Ld. NCLT and it be decided without being influenced by this order. This order passed by us shall supersede the order dated 18.08.2026 passed by the Ld. NCLT. The appeal is disposed of.

I.A No. 6002, 6003 & 6004 of 2026 are also closed.