AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
(Hybrid Mode)
These two appeals have been filed by the same appellant challenging the order dated 06.03.2026 & 13.03.2026 respectively passed by the adjudicating authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Division Bench, Court – I, Ahmedabad) in C.P. (IB) No.35(AHM)/2026.
The Section 9 was application filed by the respondent herein which came to be heard on 06.03.2026, on which date, Court passed order permitting the corporate debtor to deposit the amount involved in the present matter in the name of Assistant Registrar, National Company Law Tribunal, Ahmedabad. In paragraph 6 of the order, following was directed:
“6.Considering the rival submissions and in order to safeguard the interest of both the parties at this stage, the Respondent/Corporate Debtor is directed to deposit the amount involved in the present matter in the name of the Assistant Registrar, National Company Law Tribunal, Ahmadabad Bench, in the form of a Fixed Deposit within a period of three (3) days from the date of this order.”
The appellant before us, who is the corporate debtor deposited the amount by confirmation letter dated 10.03.2026 and filed an affidavit on 11.03.2026. On 13.03.2026 when the matter came for consideration following order was passed by the adjudicating authority:
“Today, the matter is again taken up for hearing, and we have heard the concluding arguments from both sides and perused the records The written submissions have already been filed by both sides Further, Ld Sr. Counsel for the respondent has filed an affidavit on 11 03.2026, vide inward diary No.D-2158, which consists of Annexure R-3, a third deposit confirmation letter dated 10.03.2026 of Rs 1,24,85,667.00 in favor of the Assistant Registrar of this Tribunal However, the affidavit contains certain conditions specially mentioned in paragraph No. 8, whereas vide order dated 06.03.2026, this Tribunal directed the respondent/corporate debtor to deposit an amount involved in the present matter in the name of the Assistant Registrar in the form of a fixed deposit within a period of three days only Hence, the same cannot be taken on record, and accordingly, the same is returned in original to the respondent/corporate debtor with direction to the Assistant Registrar to release the fixed deposit to the respondent/corporate debtor forthwith.
The order is reserved.”
The submission of the counsel for the appellant is that in pursuance of the order dated 06.03.2026, appellant was directed to deposit the entire amount which amount was deposited. It is submitted that with respect to release of the amount, in the affidavit paragraph 8 has been mentioned which has been noticed by the adjudicating authority. It is submitted that the said paragraph 8 of the affidavit in no manner can be a reason for directing that amount be taken back from the Assistant Registrar of the Registry. It is submitted that the statement made in paragraph 8 was not with regard to any condition of deposit rather it was with regard to release or remittance to the operational creditor as was mentioned in paragraph 8. It is submitted that remittance or payment by corporate debtor was not in the hands of the corporate debtor, due to various orders sanctions as noticed in the affidavit.
Learned Sr. counsel Mr. P. Nagesh appearing for the operational creditor submits that the matter has been heard and order is reserved. He, however submits that operational creditor has no objection if the amount deposited may remain with deposit before the Assistant Registrar.
We have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the records.
It is an admitted fact between the parties that in pursuance of the order dated 06.03.2026 the corporate debtor has deposited the amount of Rs.1,24,85,667/- within the time allowed. The paragraph 8 of the affidavit which has been mentioned by the adjudicating authority in the order dated 13.03.2026 is as follows:
“8.In view of this binding legal prohibition, the Respondent most humbly submits that the amount deposited pursuant to the directions of this Hon'ble Tribunal ought not be released, or remitted to the Operational Creditor, as long as:
a. the U.S. primary sanctions under E.O. 13846 continue to apply Lo the Operational Creditor;
b. the Operational Creditor continues to remain in the SDN List;
and c. CJ Shah does not have any licence/authorization from the OFAC, permitting remittance by the Respondent to the Operational Creditor.
Any release of the deposited amount to the Operational Creditor prior to the satisfaction of all of the above conditions would expose the Respondent to U.S. sanctions risks.”
What has been stated in paragraph 8 was submission of the corporate debtor that the amount ought not to be released or remitted to the operational creditor so long as:
“a. the U.S. primary sanctions under E.O. 13846 continue to apply Lo the Operational Creditor;
b. the Operational Creditor continues to remain in the SDN List; and c. CJ Shah does not have any licence/authorization from the OFAC, permitting remittance by the Respondent to the Operational Creditor.”
We are of the view that paragraph 8 of the affidavit as noted above could not have been any reason to direct for refund of the amount to the corporate debtor who has deposited the same under the order of the Court.
Counsel for the appellant further submits that affidavit which has been referred to in the impugned order has been directed to be returned.
We are of the view that direction of the order dated 13.03.2026 insofar as it directs the amount deposited to be returned to the corporate debtor and not accepting the affidavit is set aside. The amount deposited shall remain in deposit before the Assistant Registrar which has also been agreed by the operational creditor.
The order having already reserved by the adjudicating authority, it is for the adjudicating authority to take a decision after considering the deposit made and the affidavit dated 10.03.2026.
In view of the aforesaid, appellant need not take return of the amount deposited as well as the affidavit. It shall be open for the parties to bring into the notice of the Court the order passed in these appeals. We, however, make it clear that this order need not be treated any reason for re-hearing.
The order dated 13.03.2026 is modified as above.
Both the appeals are disposed of accordingly.