Tribunals and CommissionsDivision Bench(2026) 03 NCLAT CK 1615

Punjab & Sind Bank vs Umesh Singhal, IRP of Supertech Township Project Ltd. & Ors.

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal · Decided on 18 March 2026

HON’BLE JUDGES
Justice Ashok Bhushan, Chairperson · Barun Mitra, Member (Technical)
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1827 of 2025

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

9 paragraphs · 367 words

(Hybrid Mode)

Heard counsel for the appellant as well as Shri Virender Ganda, Ld. Sr. Counsel appearing for the IRP.

2.

This appeal has been filed against the order dated 10.10.2025 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi Bench-IV in IA No. 1601 of 2025. The appellant Punjab & Sind Bank has filed the IA praying for various reliefs as noted in paragraph-1. The prayers in the paragraph-1 are as follows:-

“a. Direct the Respondent to verify the claims of all the Creditors as per the Regulations and re-constitute the CoC; b. Direct the Respondent to not convene to further CoC meeting till proper verification of the claims of all the Creditors; c. Direct the Respondent to allow the Applicant and any authorized person on behalf of the Applicant to inspect the Claim Forms filed by the homebuyers (Secured financial creditors belonging to class of creditors) of the Corporate Debtor; d. Direct the Respondent to provide copies of the Claim Forms filed by the homebuyers (Secured financial creditors belonging to class of creditors) of the Corporate Debtor;

e. Pass such other Orders or directions as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

3.

Adjudicating Authority has heard the application and by impugned order has rejected the application it was observed by the Adjudicating Authority that Applicant has failed to establish any locus, illegality, or procedural irregularity in the conduct of the IRP.

4.

Ld. Counsel for the IRP made a statement that the resolution plan has already been approved yesterday by the CoC and the appellant whose claim was 100% accepted has also voted in favour of the plan. The resolution plan having been approved by CoC now the matter has to be considered by Adjudicating Authority when application is filed for approval of resolution plan.

5.

We are of the view that in view of these above facts, the issues raised in the appeal has become infructuous. We only observe that it will be open for the appellant to raise all permissible objections before the Adjudicating Authority at the time of hearing of the plan approval application.

With the liberty aforesaid, we dismiss the appeal.