AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
ORDER
PER: SHRI ASHOK KUMAR BHARDWAJ MEMBER (J)
The Financial Creditor Samman Capital Limited preferred present application under Section 7 of IBC, 2016 for initiation of CIRP qua Parsvnath Group of Companies engaged in the real estate business in New Delhi. According to the FC, the CD approached it in the year 2018 for availing loan for construction and development of housing/residential project and other corporate purpose. The FC agreed to extend the financial service to the CD. The details of loan accounts against which the financial facility was sanctioned by the FC reads thus:-
In terms of clause 3 of the Loan Agreement executed between the parties the CD has to pay/repay the entire loan along with interest to FC in the manner as agreed under the repayment schedule forming part of the Agreement. While the CD had been paying the instalments as per the repayment schedule, in the year 2022, the CD committed its first default in the repayment and in July 2023, the second default was qua the repayment of the Loan.
Part-IV of the application, wherein the particulars of amount of debt and dates of default are mentioned reads thus:-
Particulars of the financial debt documents, records, and evidence of default are given in Part-V of the application. The particulars of IP proposed to be appointed as RP of given in Part-III of the application.
In the reply filed on behalf of the CD, it has been espoused thus:-
When the copies of the order passed in the petition filed under Section 9 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, i.e. OMP(I)(COMM.)235/2024 and OMP(I)(COMM.)277/2024 which are sub-judice before the Hon’ble High Cout of Delhi, are placed on record by the FC, the copies of emails exchanged between the parties in pursuance of the orders passed by the Hon’ble High Court are not filed along with the application preferred under Section 7 of IBC, 2016.
The emails exchanged between the parties clearly evidences the on-going discussion between the parties regarding the issue of reconciliation of loan accounts including those which are subject matter of these proceedings. Apart from exchange of emails containing discussion about reconciliation of loan accounts, various meetings took place between the parties.
The Applicant issued NoC in respect of the properties referred to in para 11 of non-para wise reply.
In the para-wise reply filed by the CD, it espoused thus:-
a. The CD the parent and main company of the Parsvnath Group of Companies having an impeccable record in the construction, development and architecture industry and the group is one of the leading corporates in the field. With a pan-India presence in over 37 cities in 13 States, Parsvnath Group of Companies have developed contemporary residential spaces, state-of-the-art office complexes, affordable housing, luxurious, shopping malls and hypermarkets, multiplexed and ultra-modern IT Parks. It is accredited Real Estate developers which have been conferred with various international and national accreditations for its quality standard.
b. Between the years 2011-2020, the CD and its group companies (as co-borrowers) availed several loan facilities, development loans and credit facilities from the FC on interest rates ranging mainly from 9% to 16% as per various Sanction Letters/Loan Agreements executed amongst them for various projects being executed by the Parsvnath Group. These interest rates have been eventually increased unreasonably and unilaterally, in some cases even over 30% and further most of the loan accounts had been arbitrarily foreclosed. The said loans were advanced by the Financial Creditor and its group companies based on the impeccable reputation of the Corporate Debtor and its standing in the market. The Financial Creditor took advantage of the slowdown in the real estate market and its effect on the Corporate Debtor and their group companies and sanctioned the loan facilities on one-sided terms & conditions, undertakings and other documents, knowing fully well that the Corporate Debtor and their group companies would have no option but to avail the said loan facilities in view of the economic slowdown in the real estate sector. It became evident from the consequent actions of Financial Creditor that their intention was to solely take advantage of the Corporate Debtor and their group companies. Out of the various loan facilities availed by the Corporate Debtor and their group companies, as on date, seven (7) loan facilities are in operation as per Financial Creditor, details of which are as under:
c. The FC as per its own whims and fancies and without providing any information to the CD and its group companies, has been arbitrarily foreclosing the loan accounts.
d. No specific purpose of availing of loans was mentioned in the sanction letters by the FC and the purpose in all sanction letters has been shown as general. Further, since 2011, no information has been issued to CD as to why the deductions have been made and maximum amount has been taken back immediately as repayment/foreclosure of earlier loans by the FC at the time of disbursal and against which loan account the repayments made by the CD have been adjusted.
e. Since the very inception and without any disclosure, it has been a practice adopted by the FC wherein a huge sum out of the sanctioned amounts were either deducted even before the disbursal or taken back immediately upon disbursal. The CD and its group companies are paying interest on the said deductions whereas such advance deductions/payments by/ to the FC are required to be either adjusted towards repayment or to be refunded to the respective borrowers along with upto date interest at time of closure of the loan along with interest charged by FC on this advance payment/deduction. However, the said amounts as per the records of the CD have never been adjusted/refunded despite repeated requests of the CD.
f. Over a period of time, loan facilities to the tune of Rs. 4,861.25 Crores have been sanctioned by the Financial Creditor. Out of the said sanctioned amount, an amount of Rs. 4,153.26 Crores has been disbursed. Out of the disbursed amount of Rs. 4,153.26 Crores, an amount of Rs. 394.36 Crores (gross up TDS) has either been deducted even before the disbursal or taken back immediately upon disbursal.
g. The Financial Creditor even after deducting/receiving an exorbitant advance amount of 394.36 Crores (gross up TDS) and interest on it till date of adjustment in outstanding loans /payment to the Corporate Debtor from the disbursed amount, failed to carry out the necessary adjustments in the total amount due to it or return back the same to the Corporate Debtor along with interest. It would not be out of place to mention herein that the Financial Creditor arbitrarily foreclosed various loan accounts by sanctioning fresh loans to the Corporate Debtor and their group companies and have also charged hefty amount in the name of processing fees.
h. Towards repayment of the disbursed amount of Rs. 4,153.26 Crores, an amount of Rs.4696.01 Crores has already been paid by the Corporate Debtor and its group companies, which includes interest amounting to Rs. 1006.03 Crores (excluding the upfront amount already deducted by the Financial Creditor or paid to the Financial Creditor at time of disbursal). Despite having paid the said amount which is way over the interest agreed under the sanction letters, the Corporate Debtor and its group of companies are still required to pay an amount of Rs. 489.32 (principal Rs. 463.28 and Interest Rs. 26.04 Crores) Crores during the course of the loan tenure. Assuming without accepting, the aforesaid amount as correct (pending reconciliation) and assuming even accepting unilateral increase in interest rates, if the amount of Rs. 394.36 Crores along with interest till date of adjustment /payment to Corporate Debtor and its group companies is adjusted against the aforesaid amount of Rs. 489.32 Crores, then nothing is payable to the Financial Creditor and as such Financial Creditor would be liable to pay to the Corporate Debtor as outstanding under the loan accounts. On the other hand, if interest is calculated at the same rates as charged by Financial Creditor on the amount of Rs. 394.36 Crores, then approximately an amount of Rs. 959.97 Crores is payable by Financial Creditor to the Corporate Debtor and their group companies, and nothing is payable by them to the Financial Creditor. Table capturing the aforesaid figure is reproduced hereunder for the ready reference of the Hon'ble Court:
Since 2018, loan facilities to the tune of Rs. 1454.65 Crores have been sanctioned by the Financial Creditor. Out of the said sanctioned amount, an amount of Rs. 1406 Crores has been disbursed for the purpose of investing and developing various residential projects throughout the country. Further an amount of 1346 Crores has already been repaid by Corporate Debtor and their group companies against the said loan facilities.
j. The Corporate Debtor and its group companies have always made payments of the interest, upfront amount as well as principal amount to the Financial Creditor despite the slowdown and recession faced by the Real Estate Industry and the onset of the Covid-19 Pandemic. Admittedly, till date Corporate Debtor and its group companies have already paid an excessive amount over what was actually due and payable to the Financial Creditor. Despite the same, the Financial Creditor has been raising arbitrary and illegal demands without even informing the Corporate Debtor about the actual status of each loan account.
k. Despite making exorbitant payments and without complying with the mutual understanding between the parties and the terms of the Loan Agreements, the Financial Creditor illegally and unlawfully issued recall notices dated 01.09.2023 and further filed a Petition under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 bearing C.P.(IB) No: 690/ND/2023 before this Adjudicating Authority seeking initiation of Insolvency proceeding against the Corporate Debtor despite it having cleared a major chunk of the outstanding dues of the Financial Creditor and as mentioned herein above nothing is due and payable if reconciliation is conducted by the Financial Creditor. It is pertinent to mention that on being confronted with their failure to comply with the terms of the Loan Agreements and payment of dues under duress by the Corporate Debtor, the said petition filed by it under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 bearing C.P.(IB) No: 690/ND/2023 before this Hon'ble Adjudicating Authority was disposed of on 01.02.2024. This was the second attempt made by the Financial Creditor to drag the Corporate Debtor before this Hon'ble Adjudicating Authority. In a similar fashion, as has been mentioned hereinafter, the Financial Creditor had also withdrawn the previously filed petition under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 on 11.04.2022.
l. The Financial Creditor had previously instituted a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("Section 9 Petition") which culminated into a final order dated 20.12.2023 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. By way of the said order, the Hon'ble High of Court of Delhi referred the dispute to the Arbitral Tribunal and directed that the said Section 9 Petition be treated as an application under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and shall be considered by the Tribunal. With the said order, the Section 9 Petition stood disposed of. It is also relevant to point herein that various inconsistencies in the alleged amounts due and payable by the Corporate Debtor and its group companies to the Financial Creditor were also noticed by the Hon'ble High Court whereafter the Financial Creditor had been directed during the course of hearing on 22.11.2023 in the abovementioned matter, to provide the updated Statement of Account for all the loan facilities from beginning to till date to the Corporate Debtor since there were various inconsistencies in the alleged amounts due and payable by the Corporate Debtor to the Financial Creditor. However, what may be noted that the Financial Creditor has till date not provided the Statement of accounts of all the Loans accounts I Loan facilities disbursed by Financial Creditor to the Corporate Debtor as had been directed by the Hon'ble High Court.
m. The CD also initiated Insolvency proceedings before this Hon'ble Adjudicating Authority bearing no. CP (IB) 275/ND/2022 against the Corporate Debtor in the year 2022. However, when the Corporate Debtor confronted the Financial Creditor with their failure to comply with the terms of the Loan Agreements, the Financial Creditor was forced to withdraw the Insolvency Proceedings against the Corporate Debtor vide order dated 11.04.2022. Moreover, vide letter dated 20.04.2022, the Financial Creditor withdrew all the notices, proceedings etc. against the Corporate Debtor and its Group of Companies. Pertinently, the Financial Creditor in its letter dated 20.04.2022 had admitted that all the overdue amounts had been paid by the Corporate Debtor and its group companies as well.
n. The Financial Creditor also issued Notices on 30.01.2023 making the same allegations without giving any clarity on the issues of exorbitant interest rate, reconciliation of accounts, release of securities, No objection certificates with respect to the properties to be released, No dues certificate for closed loan accounts etc. The said Notices were duly responded to by Corporate Debtor on 18.02.2023 wherein the Corporate Debtor had again raised the concerns regarding exorbitant interest rate, reconciliation of accounts, pending No Objection Certificate for the properties be released/release charge on ROC, pending No Dues Certificate for closed loan account etc. Further, vide email dated 20.02.2023, the Corporate Debtor also raised their protest with respect to the unilateral increase in the rate of interest by the Financial Creditor. However, the Financial Creditor chose to turn a blind eye to the concerns of the Corporate Debtor which is evident from the fact that the said communications have not been responded to till date.
o. The Financial Creditor convened a meeting on 30.3.2023 wherein the aforesaid issues including but not limited to reconciliation and charging of exorbitant interest, were raised by the Corporate Debtor to which the Financial Creditor assured early resolution.
p. Without resolving the concerns of the Corporate Debtor, the Financial Creditor yet again issued loan recall notices to the Corporate Debtor on 01.09.2023. Upon receipt of the said notices, the representatives of the Corporate Debtor reached out to the Financial Creditor and as such, a meeting came to be convened amongst them on 14.09.2023. After due deliberations, the Financial Creditor agreed to keep the loan recall notices in abeyance which was further recorded by the Corporate Debtor in email dated 16.09.2023.
q. As the CD was fearing commencement of Insolvency proceedings, on 08.01.2024 it paid an amount of Rs. 62,46,62,757/- to the Financial Creditor under duress and as such again requested the Financial Creditor to reconcile the loan accounts, however till date the FC has not reconciled the loan accounts with the sole intent to force the CD and its group companies to monetize its assets at much lower rates.
r. Further, after dismissal of the petition preferred under Section 7 of IBC, 2016 as well as withdrawal of Arbitral Proceedings, the FC yet again illegally issued Demand Notices dated 24.05.2024 to the CD and its group companies. The said notices were duly replied to by the CD by way of its reply dated 30.02.2024 wherein the CD and its group companies have yet again informed the FC that the amounts alleged in the Demand Notices are nothing but arbitrary amounts. The Corporate Debtor and its group companies have, by way of the reply, requested the Financial Creditor to consider their previous reply letters dated 18.02.2023 and 25.09.2023 which had been issued against the previous notices issued by the Financial Creditor dated 30.01.2023 and 01.09.2023 respectively. It was duly informed to the Financial Creditor that the previous replies issued by the Corporate Debtor and its group companies have been overlooked and the issue of exorbitant interest rate, release of securities, No-Objection Certificates etc. have not been responded to by the Financial Creditor. Despite having overlooked the said contentions of the Corporate Debtor, the Financial Creditor has maliciously and arbitrarily issued the Demand Notices dated 24.05.2024.
s. Without providing any reply to the Corporate Debtor in respect to the issues being raised by the Corporate Debtor with respect to exorbitant interest rate, release of securities, No-Objection Certificates etc. again issued recall notices dated 08.07.2024 to the Corporate Debtor thereby recalling the Loan Accounts.
t. The CD informed the FC that the complete outstanding of the CD and its group companies as per records of the FC till March 2024 has been cleared and the principal amount for the month of April 2024 has been cleared, though the amount is paid to the FC never matched the outstanding dues payable by the CD and its group companies as there was no reconciliation of the accounts despite repeated requests and reminders of the CD.
u. Various disputes including the following subsists between the parties:-
With reference to the liability of the Financial Creditor, to reconcile all the loan accounts by taking into account the upfront amounts and interest thereupon paid by the Corporate Debtor to the Financial Creditor.
With reference to the liability of the Financial Creditor, to release the properties mortgaged towards the subject loan accounts.
With reference to the liability of the Financial Creditor, to refund the excessive amount paid by the Corporate Debtor and its group companies.
With reference to the liability of the Financial Creditor, to issue No Dues Certificate with respect to all the loan facilities which have been closed.
With reference to the liability of the Financial Creditor to, pending settlement/reconciliation of the accounts, no coercive steps be initiated against the Corporate Debtor and its group companies.
The parties viz. the CD and FC have already agreed to settle their dispute through arbitration mechanism envisaged under the loan agreements. As there exists a valid, legal and subsisting arbitration clause under which the disputes being raised herein are fully covered, the disputes should be settled in the arbitral proceedings. Thus, the CD and its group companies have rightly filed a Petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act bearing OMP(I)(COMM) No. 235 of 2024 titled as Parsvnath Developers Limited & Ors. vs. Samman Capital Limited & Anr. against the FC and its group company Indiabulls Commercial Credit Limited before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi.
w. During the course of hearing, in the aforementioned proceedings, before Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, the Counsel appearing on behalf of the FC as well as CD had made a joint request and on the basis of that Hon’ble High Court directed the representatives of the parties to hold a meeting to attempt a resolution of accounts between them. It was recorded in the order passed by Hon’ble High Court that in the event the parties are unable to resolve the issue, the Counsel will take instructions as to whether an arbitral tribunal can be constituted in the said proceedings itself.
The representatives of the CD met with the representatives of the FC on 31.07.2024 to reconcile the accounts, however, the representatives of the FC did not reconcile all the loan accounts and confined their discussion only to active loan accounts. Accordingly, the CD issued an e-mail dated 31.07.2024 to the FC to reconcile all the loan accounts and further share with them the summary of the loan accounts including the details of the upfront amount taken by the FC.
In sum and substance, the plea raised on behalf of the CD is that if all the loan accounts between the FC and the CD are reconciled and if the deduction is taken into account, the CD would have counter claim against the FC.
During the pendency of the present petition viz. IB-465/(PB)/2024, the FC and CD entered into settlement and Ms. Pooja Sehgal, Ld. Sr. Counsel for CD handed over demand drafts for an amount of Rs. 75 Crore to the Ld. Counsel for the FC. In the wake, the FC could withdraw the petition with liberty to seek revival of the same. The order dated 17.02.2025 passed by this Tribunal reads thus:-
After the aforementioned order, the FC viz. Samman Capital Limited assigned the debt to ARCIL. Thereafter, ARCIL (FC) preferred IA-3612/ND/2025, for revival of the present petition. This Tribunal allowed the IA in terms of the order dated 20.08.2025, which reads thus:-
The aforementioned order was challenged before Hon’ble High Court in CM(M) 1867/2025 & CM Appeal 60039/2025, which was dismissed in terms of the order dated 23.09.2025.
Subsequent thereto, the Ld. Counsel for the CD produced a copy of order dated 26.09.2025, passed by Hon’ble High Court and submitted that the Ld. Counsel for FC had made a statement before Hon’ble High Court that a request would be made before this Tribunal on 28.09.2025 not to pass any final order in the present proceedings. Thus, on 29.09.2025, this Tribunal passed the following order:-
On 08.10.2025, Mr. Abhishek Anand, Ld. Counsel for the CD submitted that since the hearing in the proceedings before Hon’ble High Court could be deferred to 07.10.2025, it would be apt for this Tribunal to take up the present petition for hearing only after 17.10.2025. Thus, on 08.10.2025, this Tribunal passed the following order:-
“At the outset, Mr. Abhishek Anand, Ld. Counsel for the Corporate Debtor submitted that an affidavit has been filed that in-compliance of the order dated 26.09.2025 passed by Hon’ble Delhi High Court and amount of Rs. 75 crores would be deposited in Delhi High Court. He further submitted that, the next date of hearing before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court is 17.10.2025 and it would be in the fitness of things that this Tribunal take up the matter for hearing only on or after 17.10.2025.
Mr. Sudhir Makkar, Ld. Sr. Counsel appearing for the Creditor submitted that in Paragraph-2 of the order dated 26.09.2025 passed by the Hon’ble High Court it is made clear that the request on behalf of the creditor need to be made only to the effect that the final order may not be passed, but there is no indication in the order passed by Hon’ble High Court that this Tribunal may not take up the petition for hearing.
He also espoused that as can be seen from the provisions of sub-Section (4) of Section-7 of IBC, 2016, this Tribunal need to take up an application preferred under Section 7 (1) & (2) of the Code within 14 days.
We agree with the understanding of the order of Hon’ble High Court as explained by Sr. Advocate Sudhir Makkar. However, since Hon’ble High Court is hearing O.M.P (I) COMM.-330/2025 a request has been made to this Tribunal not to pass any final order but to conclude the hearing.
In any case, since Mr. Abhishek Anand, Ld. Counsel for the Corporate Debtor submitted that the understanding of the order of Hon’ble High Court is that the petitioner made a request to this Court not to even hear the matter, we may reschedule the present petition for hearing on 17.10.2025 at 02:30 P.M.
We are sanguine that in compliance of the order dated 29.09.2025, the Corporate Debtor would file affidavit and place it on record, before this Tribunal.”
As can be seen from the above, the hearing in the present proceedings could be deferred to 17.10.2025. Subsequently, the same was deferred to 27.10.2025 and then to 31.10.2025. On 31.10.2025, Mr. Makkar submitted that this Tribunal might not pass any final order till the next date of hearing before Hon’ble High Court but there was no direction passed from Hon’ble High Court that this Tribunal should not take up the application/present petition for hearing even. The order dated 31.10.2025 passed by this Tribunal reads thus:-
“When Mr. Abhishek Anand, Ld. Counsel for the Corporate Debtor submitted that once Delhi High Court has passed and issued directions that no final order will be passed in the present application, Mr. Makkar, Ld. Sr. Counsel appearing for the Financial Creditor submitted that the ramification of the order passed by Hon’ble High Court is that this Tribunal should not pass any final order till the next date of hearing before the Hon’ble High Court but there is no order passed by the Hon’ble High Court, that this Tribunal should not take up the application filed for initiation of CIRP for hearing.
In any case it is already 1:10 P.M., present Bench assembled only for the forenoon session. In the wake, hearing is deferred to 07.11.2025.”
On 07.11.2025, Mr. Makkar, Ld. Sr. Advocate, produced copies of order dated 06.11.2025 passed by Division Bench and Single Judge of Hon’ble High Court and submitted that in terms of the order dated 06.11.2025 passed by Hon’ble Single Judge, the Respondents before Hon’ble High Court were not to take any precipitative action and Hon’ble Single Judge of High Court orally refused to stay the present proceedings. Thus, this Tribunal passed order dated 07.11.2025 which reads thus:-
“Having taken note of the order dated 26.09.2025 passed by Hon’ble Delhi High Court, we passed order dated 29.09.2025. Subsequently, Hon’ble High Court passed order dated 29.10.2025 which reads thus:
Subsequent to the aforementioned order passed by Hon’ble Single Judge of the High Court, the Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court passed order dated 06.11.2025, which reads thus:
The understanding of Mr. Makkar, Ld. Sr. Counsel appearing for Financial Creditor of the order dated 06.11.2025 passed by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court is that in terms thereof, the order dated 29.10.2025 (supra) turn non est.
However, Mr. Abhishek Anand, Ld. Counsel for the Corporate Debtor produced order dated 06.11.2025 passed by the Ld. Single Judge of Hon’ble Delhi High Court which reads thus:
According to Mr. Abhishek Anand, the ramification of the order passed by Hon’ble Single Judge on 06.11.2025 is that the Financial Creditor before us are not supposed to press the present application before us today. Arguing to the contrary, Mr. Makkar, Ld. Sr. Counsel for the
Financial Creditor submitted that the order cannot be understood as an impediment to take up the present matter for hearing. On instruction from Mr. Siddharth Joshi, Advocate he submitted that the Corporate Debtor before us had specifically pressed during the course of hearing before Hon’ble High Court for restrain order qua the hearing in the present proceedings, but no such interim order was passed by Hon’ble Delhi High Court.
In our understanding, at the first place, the order dated 06.11.2025 need to be understood along with the ramification of order dated 26.09.2025 and order dated 29.10.2025 viz. this Tribunal may not pass any final order in the present application. There is also a possibility to have an understanding of the order that no steps, which may have bearing on the proceedings before Hon’ble High Court may be taken up. Such position may arise, only when IRP take control of the management of the Corporate Debtor and not at the stage when in due deference to the statutory period viz. 14 days the application is taken up for hearing.
Nevertheless, as the proceedings in which order dated 06.11.2025 could be passed by Hon’ble High Court are scheduled for today itself, we list the present petition for hearing on 10.11.2025.”
Finally, arguments were heard on 10.11.2025 and order was reserved. As the repetitive stand of the CD had been in favour of settlement, showing due consideration to the inclination of the parties in this regard, we awaited report from the parties regarding reconsideration/settlement. However, no such report has been filed. Even on 17.02.2026, when we listed IA-6292/ND/2025, for pronouncement of orders, the Counsels for the parties who remained present to know the order did not make any mention about reconciliation or settlement. However, on 17.02.2026 we allowed the IA and passed following order:-
ORDER
IA-6292/ND/2025: The prayer made in the captioned application reads thus:
“a. Allow the present application and take on record the Orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in OMP(I)(COMM) No.330 of 2025 filed by the Corporate Debtor under Section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996;”
For the reasons stated therein, the IA is allowed and the orders passed by Hon’ble High Court are kept on record.”
The particulars/details of the order passed by Hon’ble High Court, enclosed with the IA can be summarised as under:-
| Date and Case Number | Order |
|---|---|
| 18.08.2025 in Parsvnath Developers Limited & Ors. vs. Asset Reconstruction Company India Limited (O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 330/2025 and I.A. 20016-17/2025) | At request of Mr. Nayar, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No.1 on advance copy of the petition, list on 19.08.2025. |
19.08.2025 (O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 330/2025 & I.A. 20016/2025) | I.A. 20017 /2025 (Exemption) 1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2. Application stands disposed of. O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 330/2025 3. Issue notice. 4. Ms. Meghna Mishra, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of Respondent No. 1. 5. Mr. Siddharth Joshi, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of Respondents No. 2 and 3. 6. Mr. Rajiv Nayar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Respondent No. 1 takes a preliminary objection to the maintainability of this petition and has addressed arguments to some extent. |
| 7. Let replies be filed by the Respondents within three days from today. Needless to state, it will be open to the Respondents to take objection to the maintainability of this petition in their replies, which will be considered on the next date of hearing. 8. Rejoinder, if any, be filed before the next date of hearing. 9. List for hearing on 26.08.2025 at 2:30 PM. | |
26.08.2025 (O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 330/2025 and I.A. 20016/2025) | To come up for further hearing on 01.09.2025. |
01.09.2025 (O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 330/2025 and I.A. 20016/2025) | Hon'ble Judge is not holding the Court today. List on 08.09.2025. |
08.09.2025 (O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 330/2025 & I.A. 20016/2025) | List for further hearing on 10.09.2025. |
10.09.2025 (O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 330/2025 and I.A. 20016/2025) | List for further hearing on 15.09.2025. |
15.09.2025 (O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 330/2025 and I.A. 20016/2025) | List for further hearing on 23.09.2025. |
23.09.2025 (O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 330/2025 & LA. 20016/2025) | List for further hearing on 25.09.2025. |
25.09.2025 (O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 330/2025 and I.A. 20016/2025) | List for further hearing on 26.09.2025. |
26.09.2025 (O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 330/2025 & LA. 20016/2025) | 1. Without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the Petitioners, Mr. Tanmay Mehta, learned counsel for the Petitioners, on instructions, submits that in order to show the bona fides of the Petitioners, they will deposit a sum of Rs.75 crores in this Court within four weeks from today. 2. Mr. Rajiv Nayar, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No. I, on instructions, submits that a request will be made before National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi, on 28.09.2025 when the petition filed under Section 7 of IBC, 2016 is listed, not to pass a final order since this Court is hearing the present petitions. 3. Let an affidavit be filed on behalf of the Petitioners on or before 06.10.2025, undertaking that a sum of Rs.75 crores will be deposited in this Court within four weeks from today. 4. List for further hearing on 17.10.2025. |
13.10.2025 (O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 330/2025) | I.A. 25498/2025 l. This application is filed on behalf of Respondent No. I for modification of order dated 26.09.2025 to the extent of deleting paragraph 2 wherein statement of learned Senior Counsel for Respondent No. I has been recorded. 2. Mr. Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners submits that a fresh affidavit has been filed by Petitioner No. I, which is in compliance with order dated 26.09.2025. 3. On perusal of the affidavit, this Court is of the view that the same is compliant with order dated 26.09.2025 and is accepted. 4. In light of the affidavit dated 10.10.2025 filed by Petitioner No. I, learned Senior Counsel for Respondent No. I, on instructions, does not press this application. 5. Application is disposed of as not pressed. O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 330/2025 6. With the consent of learned counsel for the Petitioners and learned Senior Counsel for Respondent No. 1 as also learned counsel for Respondent No. 2, the date of 17.10.2025 is cancelled. 7. List on 28.10.2025. |
28.10.2025 (O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 330/2025 & I.A. 20016/2025) | List on 29.10.2025 before Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jasmeet Singh. |
| 29.10.2025 (O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 330/2025 & I.A. 20016/2025, I.A. 26706/2025) | 1. Arguments heard in part. 2. On 26.09.2025, the learned counsel for the respondent No. I made a statement before this Court that a request will be made to the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) not to pass the final order since this Court is hearing the present petition. |
| 3. Mr. Nayar, learned senior counsel for the respondent No. I, states that he is unable to extend that undertaking any further. 4. Mr. Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioners, states that Rs. 75 crores will be deposited within 3 weeks from today. 5. I am of the view that since the matter has been heard at some length, it would be in the fitness of things that the interim Order dated 26.09.2025 should continue till the next date of hearing. Additionally on 26.09.2025, the interim Order was passed on assurance that the amount would be deposited within 4 weeks from the date of the order. Mr. Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioners, assures that the amount will be deposited within 3 weeks. 6. Hence the directions in the order dated 26.09.2025 are continued till the next date of hearing. | |
7. List for further arguments on 22.11.2025. | |
| 06.11.2025 (O.M.P. (I)(COMM.) 330/2025 & I.A. 20016/2025, I.A. 26706/2025) | 1. The matter was mentioned at I :30 p.m. by Mr. Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioners, pursuant to the liberty granted in the order dated 06.11.2025 passed in FAO (OS) (COMM) 180/2025. 2. Consequently, the matter was directed to be listed and has been taken up at 2:30 p.m. 3. Arguments heard from 2:30 p.m. till 4:30 p.m. in pursuance to the directions of the Division Bench. 4. List for further arguments on 07.11.2025. 5. Since the matter has been heard in part, the respondents shall not take any precipitative action till the next date of hearing. 6. Dasti under the signature of the Court Master. |
07.11.2025 (O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 330/2025) | 1. The matter was passed over at 11 :00 AM and 12:30 PM as the learned senior counsel for the respondents was on his legs before the Division Bench. 2. Hence, the matter could only be taken up post lunch. 3. Further arguments have been heard. 4. Since the matter has been heard at length and is listed on 10.11.2025, it is directed that no precipitative steps shall be taken in terms of loan documents till the next date of hearing. 5. Dasti under the signature of Court Master. |
10.11.2025 (O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 330/2025) | List for hearing on 11.11.2025 at 3:30 p.m. Interim orders to continue till the next date of hearing. |
| 11.11.2025 (O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 330/2025 & I.A. 20016/2025, I.A. 26706/2025) | 1. Mr. Nayar, learned senior counsel for the respondent No. 1 has concluded his arguments. 2. It is stated that Mr. Krishnan, learned senior counsel for the respondent No. 1 would like to further add to the submissions of Mr. Nayar, learned senior counsel. 3. However, Mr. Krishnan, learned senior counsel 1s on his legs in another Court. 4. Re-notify on 14.11.2025, at 12:30 p.m. 5. Interim orders to continue till the next date of hearing. |
| 14.11.2025 (O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 330/2025 & I.A. 20016/2025, I.A. 26706/2025) | 1. Mr. Nayar and Mr. Krishnan, learned senior counsels have concluded their arguments on behalf of the respondents. 2. For rejoinder arguments on behalf of the petitioner, list on 17 .11.2025. 3. Interim orders to continue till the next date of hearing. |
| 17.11.2025 (O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 330/2025 & I.A. 20016/2025, I.A. 26706/2025) | 1. List on 20.11.2025 at 3 :30 p.m. 2. Interim orders to continue till the next date of hearing. |
| 20.11.2025 (O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 330/2025 & I.A. 20016/2025, I.A. 26706/2025) | 1. The matter was listed for further arguments. 2. Re-notify for hearing on 24.11.2025 at 3:30 p.m. |
| 3. Since the matter is being listed on 24.11.2025, the date of 22.11.2025 stands cancelled. 4. Interim orders to continue till the next date of hearing. | |
| 24.11.2025 (O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 330/2025 & I.A. 20016/2025, I.A. 26706/2025) | List for further arguments on 01.12.2025. Interim orders, if any, to continue till the next date of hearing. |
| 01.12.2025 (O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 330/2025 & I.A. 20016/2025, I.A. 26706/2025) | At request of the learned counsel for the petitioner, re-notify on 08.12.2025. Interim orders, if any, to continue till the next date of hearing. |
| 08.12.2025 (O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 330/2025, I.A. 20016/2025, I.A. 26706/2025) | Arguments heard. Judgment reserved. Interim orders shall continue till the matter is reserved. |
| Date and Case Number | Order |
|---|---|
| 09.09.2025 in Noida Marketing Private Limited Vs. Asset Reconstruction Company India Limited & Ors. (O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) | At request of learned counsel for the Petitioner, list on 10.09.2025. |
367/2025 & I.As. 22208/2025, 22209/2025) | |
| 10.09.2025 (O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 367 /2025 and I.A. 22208/2025, 22209/2025) | List on 15. 09 .2025. |
| 15.09.2025 (O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 367/2025 and I.A. 22208/2025, 22209/2025) | List on 23.09.2025. |
25.09.2025 (O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 330/2025 and I.A. 20016/2025) | List for further hearing on 26.09.2025. |
26.09.2025 (O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 330/2025 & I.A. 20016/2025) | 1. Without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the Petitioners, Mr. Tanmay Mehta, learned counsel for the Petitioners, on instructions, submits that in order to show the bona jides of the Petitioners, they will deposit a sum ofRs.75 crores in this Court within four weeks from today. 2. Mr. Rajiv Nayar, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No. I, on instructions, submits that a request will be made before National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi, on 28.09.2025 when the petition filed under Section 7 of IBC, 2016 is listed, not to pass a final order since this Court is hearing the present petitions. 3. Let an affidavit be filed on behalf of the Petitioners on or before 06.10.2025, undertaking that a sum of Rs.75 crores will be deposited in this Court within four weeks from today. 4. List for further hearing on 17.10.2025. |
| 17.10.2025 (O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 367/2025, LA. 22208/2025 & I.A. 22209/2025) | List on 28.10.2025. |
11.11.2025 (O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 367/2025) | I.A. 27968/2025 1. The present application under Section 151 of CPC has been filed on behalf of the Petitioner seeking directions for listing & tagging the present petition with the petition being OMP(I)(COMM.) 330 of 2025 which is listed today before Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jasmeet Singh. |
| 2. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. 3. List the present petition i.e., O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 367/2025 before Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jasmeet Singh today itself. 4. The application is disposed of. | |
| 11.11.2025 (O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 367/2025 & I.A. 22208/2025, I.A. 22209/2025) | 1. The present matter has been received on transfer. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the order/judgment in O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 330/2025 shall cover the present petition as well. 3. List on 14.11.2025 along with O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 330/2025 at 12:30 p.m. 4. Interim orders, if any, to continue till the next date of hearing. |
As far as the ramification of interim order dated 06.11.2025, passed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court is concerned, we could already explain the ramification of the same in our order dated 07.11.2025 (supra). The precipitative steps would mean that nothing such that causes a sudden occurrence should be done. However, as could be noted in the aforementioned order dated 07.11.2025, in view of the stand taken by Mr. Makkar Ld. Sr. Counsel for FC, on instructions from Mr. Siddharth Joshi Advocate, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court had not stayed the proceedings before this Tribunal. In any case, finally, the Single Judge of Hon’ble High Court passed order dated 19.02.2026, Hon’ble High Court (Single Judge) dismissing the O.M.P (I) (COMM) 367/2025. The relevant excerpt of the order reads thus:-
“95.In view of the above discussion, the other submissions advanced by the petitioners namely, that the NCLT is not an efficacious forum, and that the grant of relief would not amount to foreclosing the respondent No.13 rights under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 do not require adjudication in the present case. These issues are left open to be considered in an appropriate case.
96.Consequently, the question of granting an anti-suit or anti-tribunal injunction, or of pre-empting proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 does not arise. To enter into an examination of those issues, in the absence of even a prima facie finding regarding the existence of an arbitration agreement, would be a purely academic exercise. This Court declines to undertake such an exercise at this stage.
97.In view of the reasons above interim recorded on 26.09.2025 stands vacated, and the said petition is also dismissed.
98.Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
O.M.P (I) (COMM)367/2025
99.As both the parties are ad idem that O.M.P (I) (COMM) 367/2025 will be covered by the decision in O.M.P. (I) (COMM) 330/2025, as it arises from an identical and substantially similar factual matrix.
100.In view of the above, O.M.P (I) (COMM) 367/2025 is also dismissed.
101.Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.”
In any case, the order passed by Ld. Single Judge of Hon’ble High Court was assailed before Division Bench of Hon’ble High Court by way of FAO (OS) (COMM) 43/2026 and FAO (OS) (COMM) 44/2026. The last order passed by the Division Bench in the FAO reads thus:
ORDER
06.04.2026
FAO(OS) (COMM) 43/2026
1.On instructions, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submits that he has already filed an application today with the Registry seeking release of the amount of Rs.25 crores in favour of Respondent No.1.
2.Learned Senior Counsel for the respondent no.1 submits that he has no objection in accepting the aforesaid amount, without prejudice to their rights and contentions.
3.Let the amount be released in favour of Respondent No.1, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties.
4.On joint request, list on 25.05.2026.
FAO (OS) (COMM) 44/2026
5.List on 25.05.2026.
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 of Rs. 10 Crores would be paid to the Creditor during the course of the day. He submitted that, the debtor is keenly pursuing the matter to arrive at a settlement with the Financial Creditor regarding the amount of debt defaulted to be paid. At this stage, the Ld. Counsel for the Creditor submitted that he has no instruction from his client regarding the arguments advanced on behalf of the Corporate Debtor. Nevertheless, since the Corporate Debtor is striving to enter into settlement with the Financial Creditor regarding the amount of debt, we defer the pronouncement of order till 08.04.2026.”
2.Today again Mr. Abh Today again Mr. Abhishek Anand, Ld. Counsel for Corporate Debtor present with Mr. Sanjeev Jain, Managing Director handed over a proposal to Ld. Counsel for the Financial Creditor and submitted that the management of the Corporate Debtor is in talk with the management of the Financial Creditor and there is a possibility that the parties will enter into some settlement. The Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that she has no instruction from her client, nevertheless, she will send the proposal to the Petitioner for its consideration.
3.Mr. Abhishek Anand also submitted that as could be noted in our order dated 06.04.2026 an amount of Rs. 25.00 Cr. deposited with the registry of Hon’ble Delhi High Court has been ordered to be released to the Financial Creditor. In his submission, besides the amount of Rs. 25.00 Cr. another amount of Rs. 21,49,20,750/- has also been paid to the Financial Creditor.
4.The Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that she is aware of the order of the High Court but has no information regarding the remaining amount of Rs. 21,49,20,750/-.
5.In view of the stand taken by the Counsels for the parties, we defer the pronouncement of the order which is ready for pronouncement since 06.04.2026 till 16.04.2026. It is made clear that parties should take their call regarding the settlement by that day and on next date we will not defer the pronouncement any further at any cost except in case of the settlement arrived at and Creditor concede before this Tribunal that settlement has been arrived at and steps are taken regarding the disposal of the matter. List on 16.04.2026.”
It would be pertinent to note that even on 06.04.2026 when we were to pronounce the order a reference was made to aforementioned order passed by the Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court and request was made for deferring the pronouncement of the order. Thus, we had deferred the pronouncement to 08.04.2026.
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 objective of IBC is to resolve the insolvency of the Corporate Debtor and see that the value of Corporate Debtor is maximized, once both the Creditors and Debtors are of the view that the matter can be settled we defer the pronouncement by two weeks, subject to payment of cost of Rs. 5,00,000/- to be deposited in Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund by the Corporate Debtor. List on 30.04.2026 at 10:30 am. It is directed that the matter should be listed on the top of the board only in the category of pronouncement order.”
Finally, on 30.04.2026 i.e. today, the Ld. Counsel for the Creditor submitted that the settlement talks failed. There is no order passed by Division Bench of Hon’ble High Court, in terms of which the present proceedings are stayed.
As can be seen from 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 fact of acknowledgement of the debts.”
In the said judgment it could also be ruled that an application under Section 7 of IBC, 2016 hinges on a default on part of a CD of financial debt of an amount exceeding the specified threshold. In view of the judgment, the purpose of providing the date of default is to show that the debt is due and payable. Paras 40-42 of the judgment reads thus:-
“40.Learned Counsels for Appellant and Respondent No.1 both have referred to the Master Circular No. RBI/2013- 14/62 DBOD No. BP. BC. 1/ 21.04.048/2013-14 dated July 1, 2013 (pp. 166-167 of written submissions and convenience compilation of appellant, Vol. I) with appellant interpreting its provisions regarding asset classification as NPA to be year 2010 from which the dates of default should be considered whereas Respondent No.1 claims that the year should be 2014. We agree with the argument of Ld. Senior Counsel of Respondent No.1 that while the asset classification of the restructured loan account would be governed as per applicable prudential norms regarding classification as NPA, insofar as acknowledgement of the debts is concerned they were implicitly present in working capital consortium agreements and other documents executed by the CD and banks and the debts were therefore alive at the time these agreements were entered into.
41.We now consider the contention of the Corporate Debtor that the amount of counterclaim raised against the banks by the Corporate Debtor being Rs.1500 crores which is much more than the amount of debt, hence there will be a net amount payable to the corporate debtor and not to the banks. Therefore, there is no debt in default and liable to be paid to the banks. We note that the counterclaim has not been decided and so it remains just a proposition yet to be adjudicated upon. Moreover, merely raising a counterclaim in DRT proceedings does not in any way detract from the fact that debts are acknowledged, and they are in default, and therefore liable to be paid by the Corporate Debtor as the application under Section 7 is found to be within limitation.
42.We are convinced by the argument of Respondent No.1 that the date of NPA of the debt due to SBI is 31.1.2010 only for the purposes of the RBI guidelines. The actual date to default is the dates on which NPAs were initially declared by respective banks with 28.5.2014 for SBI, 30.6.2014 for PNB, 10.10.2014 for Corporation Bank and 31.12.2014 for UCO Bank, since the debts of respective banks were acknowledged by the CD till those dates. This is so because during the period from 2010 to 2014 when efforts were made by the four banks and the Corporate Debtor to restructure the debts, there was admission and implicit acknowledgment of the debts by the Corporate Debtor.”
As far as arbitral proceedings are concerned, as could be ruled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dena Bank (Now Bank of Baroda) vs. C. Shivakumar Reddy and Anr. (2021) 10 SCC 330, the proceedings under IBC have overriding effect over the proceedings under any other law. The relevant excerpt of the judgment reads thus:-
“84.IBC has overriding effect over other laws. Section 238 of the IBC provides that the provisions of the IBC shall have effect, notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law, for the time being in force, or any other instrument, having effect by virtue of such law.”
As has been noted hereinabove, in the reply filed on behalf of the CD, the stand taken by it is that instead of reconciling all the loan accounts, the FC confined the discussion only to active loan accounts. From such stand taken by the CD it is apparent that it sought to blend different loan accounts which is not the concept of financial debt in terms of IBC. Para 5.42 of the reply reads thus:-
“5.42Thereafter, the representatives of the Corporate Debtor met with the representatives of the Financial Creditor to reconcile the accounts on 31.07.2024, however to the shock of the representatives of the Corporate Debtor, the representatives of the Financial Creditor did not reconcile all the loan accounts and only limited their discussion with respect to the active loan accounts. Accordingly, the Corporate Debtor issued an email dated further shared with them the summary of the loan accounts including the details of the upfront amount taken by the Financial Creditor. The Financial Creditor without replying to the Email dated 31.07 .2024 issued by the Corporate Debtor issued an Email dated 31.07.2024 to the Corporate Debtor, requesting the Corporate Debtor to provide certain documents for reconciling of the loan accounts. The Corporate Debtor in response to the email dated 31.07.2024 issued an Email dated 01.08.2024 to the Financial Creditor thereby apprising the Financial Creditor that since the documents sought by them are voluminous in nature, therefore 2 weeks' time would be require for providing the requisite information. Copy of the Email dated 31.07 .2024 issued by the Corporate Debtor to the Financial Creditor is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure R-33. Copy of the Email dated 31.07 .2024 issued by the Financial Creditor to the Corporate Debtor is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure R-34. Copy of the Email dated 01.08.2024 issued by the Corporate Debtor to the Financial Creditor is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure R-35.”
Additionally, the CD could raise the issue of deduction. Apparently, by raising such issue, the CD expected this Tribunal to enter into the issue of calculation of amount of debt, which again is not the scheme of IBC. At the time of admission of an application, this Tribunal need to satisfy itself regarding fulfilment of requirement of threshold limit and the calculation of the exact amount payable to a claimant is to be done by the RP at the time of considering the claim. Para 5.47 of the reply reads thus:-
“5.47As the Financial Creditor was not agreeing the genuine request of the Corporate Debtor, the Corporate Debtor, issued an Email dated 30.08.2024 thereby again requesting the Financial Creditor to provide the following information and documents for reconciliation of the loan accounts:
a. the details of adjustment of upfront amounts deducted or taken back by Financial Creditor from time to time so that the reconciling of all loan accounts since inception can be concluded without any further delay.
b. Proof/basis of increase of rate of interest from time to time with linkage to base rate as mentioned in the sanction letters issued to Corporate Debtor. Copy of the Email dated 30.08.2024 issued by the Corporate Debtor to the Financial Creditor is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure R-40”
Even when the CD made an attempt to blend different loan accounts and tried to espouse that in totality, it is not liable to repay any amount to the Applicant, it could in a way give the calculations that difference of Rs. 4,115.26 Cr and Rs. 3,689.98 Cr. is payable to the FC/Applicant. Para 5.8 of the reply reads thus:-
“5.8Towards repayment of the disbursed amount of Rs. 4,153.26 Crores, an amount of Rs.4696.01 Crores has already been paid by the Corporate Debtor and its group companies, which includes interest amounting to Rs. 1006.03 Crores (excluding the upfront amount already deducted by the Financial Creditor or paid to the Financial Creditor at time of disbursal). Despite having paid the said amount which is way over the interest agreed under the sanction letters, the Corporate Debtor and its group of companies are still required to pay an amount of Rs. 489.32 (principal Rs. 463.28 and Interest Rs. 26.04 Crores) Crores during the course of the loan tenure. Assuming without accepting, the aforesaid amount as correct (pending reconciliation) and assuming even accepting unilateral increase in interest rates, if the amount of Rs. 394.36 Crores alongwith interest till date of adjustment /payment to Corporate Debtor and its group companies is adjusted against the aforesaid amount of Rs. 489.32 Crores, then nothing is payable to the Financial Creditor and as such Financial Creditor would be liable to pay to the Corporate Debtor as outstanding under the loan accounts. On the other hand if interest is calculated at the same rates as charged by Financial Creditor on the amount of Rs. 394.36 Crores, then approximately an amount of Rs. 959.97 Crores is payable by Financial Creditor to the Corporate Debtor and their group companies, and nothing is payable by them to the Financial Creditor. Table capturing the aforesaid figure is reproduced hereunder for the ready reference of the Hon'ble Court:
Nevertheless, as has been viewed hereinabove, at this stage it is not for us to record any finding on the calculation of amount of debt. What we need to see is that there is disbursement of amount of debt and default has occurred in repayment thereof.
In terms of the Loan Agreement dated 26.03.2018, it was agreed between the parties that the Borrower was liable to repay/pay the entire loan amount to the Lender in such manner as agreed/specified by the Lender from time to time and/or as per the Payment/Repayment Schedule. The clause 4 of the Agreement provides for default interest. The clause 3 and 4 of the agreement reads thus:-
The various letters issued by the FC, sanctioning different amounts of loan are on record as Annexure A-2 (collectively), to the application. Thus, there is sufficient material on record to establish the disbursement of amount of debt. Even the CD has also not disputed the disbursement of amount of debt and it has only emphasised for requirement of reconciliation of loan accounts and settlement of debt. In terms of letter dated 08.07.2024, the FC/Applicant recalled the financial facility. The relevant excerpt of the recall notice reads thus:-
“Subject: Notice under the Loan Documents and/or the applicable laws for, inter alia, (a) Loan(s) recall and payment of all amount(s) under the Loan Documents and/or (b) sale/transfer/assignment etc. of the Security/Securities provided under the Loan Documents and/or (c) invocation of guarantee(s) executed by the Guarantor(s) in favour of the Lender under the Loan Documents (d) invocation of pledged shares
Dear Madam/ Sir,
This has reference to the Loan Agreement executed by the (a) Borrower(s) and (b) Lender (more particularly mentioned in Schedule I hereunder), for the loan facility, more particularly mentioned in Schedule I hereunder, and/ or any amendment(s)/ addendum(s) thereto, ("Loan Agreement") and/ or other Loan Document(s). That at the time of availing the said loan facility, you had assured and promised not to commit any default in the payment of regular monthly installments pursuant to the execution of the loan agreement.
Please note that Event of Default has/have already occurred under the Loan Documents as a result of failure by the Obligor(s) to comply with the provisions of the Loan Documents including payment default(s)/delay (viz. the interest) on the Due Date(s) under the Loan Documents.
Kindly note that, as on 08.07.2024, the total (aggregate) outstanding Loan amount(s) along with the interest thereon is Rs.232,80,65,510/- (Rupees Two Hundred Thirty Two Crore Eighty Lakh Sixty Five Thousand Five Hundred Ten Only) alongwith pending TDS for an amount of Rs.5,50,41,153/-(Rupees Five Crore Fifty Lakh Forty One Thousand One Hundred Fifty Three Only), which is payable to the Lender under the Loan Documents.
In view of the aforesaid and pursuant to the provisions of the Loan Documents, without prejudice to our other rights and remedies, we hereby recall the outstanding Loan(s) and call upon you to forthwith pay us all the amount(s) payable to the Lender under the Loan Documents (including the amount(s) specified above) within 3 (three) days from the date of receipt of this notice.”
The FC also issued another notice dated 08.07.2024 recalling the financial facility of another amount of Rs. 211,46,76,821/-. The relevant excerpt of the notice reads thus:-
“Subject: Notice under the Loan Documents and/or the applicable laws for, inter alia, (a) Loan(s) recall and payment of all amount(s) under the Loan Documents and/or (b) sale/transfer/assignment etc. of the Security/Securities provided under the Loan Documents and/or (c) invocation of guarantee(s) executed by the Guarantor(s) in favour of the Lender under the Loan Documents (d) invocation of pledged shares
Dear Madam/ Sir,
This has reference to the Loan Agreement executed by the (a) Borrower(s) and {b) Lender (more particularly mentioned in Schedule I hereunder), for the loan facility, more particularly mentioned in Schedule I hereunder, and/ or any amendments(s)/ addendum(s) thereto, ("Loan Agreement'') and/ or other Loan Documents(s). That at the time of availing the said loan facility, you had assured and pursuant not to commit any default in the payment of regular monthly installments, pursuant to the execution of the loan agreement.
Please note that Event of Default has/have already occurred under the Loan Documents as a result of failure by the Obligor(s) to comply with the provisions of the Loan Documents including payment default(s)/delay (viz. the interest) on the Due Date(s) under the Loan Documents.
Kindly note that, as on 08.07.2024, the total (aggregate) outstanding Lncm amount(s) along with the interest thereon is Rs.211,46,76,821/- (Rupees Two Hundred Eleven Crore Forty Six Lakh Seventy Six Thousand Eight Hundred Twenty One Only) alongwith pending TDS for an amount of Rs.5,60,13,003/- (Rupees Five Crore Sixty Lakh Thirteen Thousand Three Only), which is payable to the Lender under the Loan Documents.
In view of the aforesaid and pursuant to the provisions of the Loan Documents, without prejudice to our other rights and remedies, we hereby recall the outstanding Loan(s) and call upon you lo forthwith pay us all the amount(s) payable to the Lender under the Loan Documents (including the amount(s) specified above) within 3 (three) days from the date of receipt of this notice.”
Also the notices dated 08.07.2024, recalling the financial facility amounting to Rs. 186,63,68,134/- plus TDS, Rs. 75,49,30,974/- plus TDS, Rs. 9,40,50,505/- plus TDS and Rs, 201,45,68,730/- plus TDS are also available on record as enclosures to the application preferred by FC under Section 7 of IBC, 2016.
The Applicant has also placed on record a copy of NeSL Report to establish default in payment of amount of debt, as Annexure A-9 to the application. A conjoint reading of Sanction Letter, Loan Agreement, and Recall Notices sufficiently establishes the disbursement of amount of debt and default in repayment thereof. As far as O.M.P.(I)(COMM.)-330/2025 viz. Parsvnath Developers Limited & Ors. vs. Asset Reconstruction Company India Limited & Ors. and O.M.P.(I)(COMM.)-367/2025 viz. Noida Marketing Private Limited vs. Asset Reconstruction Company India Limited & Ors. are concerned, as mentioned by Mr. Sudhir Makkar, Ld. Sr. Counsel, on 19.02.2026, the petitions could be dismissed by Hon’ble High Court in terms of the order dated 19.02.2026 itself. The relevant excerpt of the order passed by Hon’ble High Court reads thus:-
“95.In view of the above discussion, the other submissions advanced by the petitioners namely, that the NCLT is not an efficacious forum, and that the grant of relief would not amount to foreclosing the respondent No. 1’s rights under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 do not require adjudication in the present case. These issues are left open to be considered in an appropriate case.
96.Consequently, the question of granting an anti-suit or anti-tribunal injunction, or of pre-empting proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 does not arise. To enter into an examination of those issues, in the absence of even a prima facie finding regarding the existence of an arbitration agreement, would be a purely academic exercise. This court declines to undertake such an exercise at this stage.
97.In view of the reasons above interim recorded on 26.09.2025 stands vacated, and the said petition is also dismissed.
98.Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
99.As both the parties are ad idem that O.M.P (I) (COMM) 367/2025 will be covered by the decision in O.M.P. (I) (COMM) 330/2025, as it arises from an identical and substantially similar factual matrix.
100.In view of the above, O.M.P (I) (COMM) 367/2025 is also dismissed.
101.Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.”
Subsequently, Mr. Abhishek Anand, Ld. Counsel for the CD mentioned orally that the aforementioned order passed by single Judge of Hon’ble High Court was assailed before Hon’ble Division Bench and again an interim order was passed that no precipitative steps should be taken by the FC. As can be seen from the order passed by single Judge of Hon’ble High Court, regarding the NCLT is being efficacious forum or not, Hon’ble High Court refused to adjudicate in the aforementioned case, thus whether a direction regarding precipitative steps not to be taken by FC would apply or not to the present proceedings which are beneficial to CD viz. a process to resolve its insolvency is a debatable issue, as the company is a corporate person and commencement of CIRP cannot be called as a precipitative steps qua it. However, finally, Hon’ble Single Judge of High Court could nix the relief sought by the CD and the FAO preferred from the order of Hon’ble Single Judge is pending before Division Bench of Hon’ble High Court. Indubitably, once the issue of amount of debt is in dispute before Hon’ble High Court, though the dispute being not a ground to nix order under Section 7(6) of the Code, still the present order, CIRP as also RP would be bound by the outcome of the FAO pending before Hon’ble High Court and would abide by the outcome of the same.
As far as calculation of debt is concerned, in order dated 11.11.2025 in CP(IB) No. 329/ND/2025 viz. M/s Capital Trade Links Limited vs. M/s Vitasta Software India Private Limited, following the judgment of Hon’ble NCLAT in Suzlon Synthetics Ltd. vs. Stressed Asset Stabilization Fund, (2022) ibclaw.in 904 NCLAT, and Hon’ble Supreme Court in Innoventive Industries Ltd. vs. ICICI Bank (2018) 1 SCC 407 and Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited vs. Tulip Star Hotels Limited (2022) 5 S.C.R. 1112, this Tribunal viewed that at the stage of admission of an application preferred under Section 7 of IBC, 2016, this Tribunal need not to enter into exact calculation of amount of debt and it need only to see that threshold limit of Rs. 1 Cr is met. In the present case, from the reply of CD itself it is apparent that it defaulted in payment of much more than Rs. 1 Cr. Paras 18 and 19 of the aforementioned order passed by this Tribunal reads thus:-
In Part III of the application, the FC has proposed the name of Mr. Manoj Kumar Anand for being appointed as RP. The Part III reads thus:-
The IP has given his consent to act as RP in prescribed form (Annexure A-13 to the application). In the Form, he has declared that no disciplinary proceedings are pending against him. In the totality of the fact, we are satisfied that the requirement of Section 7(3) & (5)(a) of the Code are met. In the wake the application is admitted and CIRP is ordered to be commenced qua the CD.
Accordingly, moratorium as provided under Section 14 of IBC, 2016 is declared qua the CD and as a necessary consequence thereof the following prohibitions are imposed, which must be followed by all and sundry:
The institution of suits or continuation of pending suits or proceedings against the Respondent including execution of any judgment, decree or order in any court of law, tribunal, arbitration panel or other authority;
Transferring, encumbering, alienating or disposing of by the Respondent any of its assets or any legal right or beneficial interest therein;
Any action to foreclose, recover or enforce any security interest created by the Respondent in respect of its property including any action under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002;
The recovery of any property by an owner or lessor, where such property is occupied by or in the possession of the Respondent.
As proposed by the Petitioner, Mr. Manoj Kumar Anand, having Registration No. IBBI/IPA-001/IP-P00084/2017-18/10180 (e-mail id: anandmanoja@gmail.com) is appointed as IRP, subject to the condition that no disciplinary proceeding is pending against him. It is further ordered that Mr. Manoj Kumar Anand, IRP shall take charge of the CIRP of the Corporate Debtor with immediate effect and would take steps as mandated under the IBC specifically under Section 15, 17, 18, 20 and 21 of IBC, 2016 read with extend provisions of IBBI (Insolvency Resolution of Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016.
The Petitioner is directed to deposit Rs. 2,00,000/- only with the IRP to meet the immediate expenses. The amount, however, will be subject to adjustment by the Committee of Creditors as accounted for by Interim Resolution Professional and shall be paid back to the Financial Creditor.
A copy of this Order shall immediately be communicated by the Registry/Court Officer of this Tribunal to the Petitioner/Financial Creditor, the Respondent/Corporate Debtor and the IRP mentioned above.
In addition, a copy of this Order shall also be forwarded by the Registry/Court Officer of this Tribunal to the IBBI for their records. As has been clarified hereinabove, the present order would abide by the outcome of the proceedings pending before Division Bench of Hon’ble Delhi High Court and till the order is received, the RP would not take any precipitative steps qua the CD and its assets. The application stands disposed of.