Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Abhishek Singh vs Findoc Finvest Private Limited

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal10 July 2025

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

The appeal is disposed of as infructuous on the parties' settlement, with the parties relegated to filing an application for settlement before the Tribunal under Section 12A read with Regulation 30A; pending that application, the Interim Resolution Professional is restrained from taking further steps save as to the CoC's decision on CIRP costs and refund of EMD to prospective resolution applicants.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNALPRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHIComp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 851 of 2025&I.A. No. 3330 of 2025IN THE MATTER OF:

Abhishek Singh ...Appellant(s)

Versus

Findoc Finvest Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. ...Respondent(s) Present: For Appellant : Mr. Anurag Ojha, Mr. Vipul Kumar, Mr. Dipak Raj, Advocates. For Respondents : Mr. Sourabh Gupta, Advocate for R-2. Mr. Gitesh Chopra, Advocate for R-1.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode) 10.07.2025: This appeal is against the order dated 25.04.2025 passed

by the National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi by which application

filed under Section 7 by the Financial Creditor for the Resolution of an

amount of Rs. 2,44,19,528/- as on 01.05.2022 has been admitted.

2. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant had submitted on

04.06.2025, that he is inclined to settle the dispute with the Financial

Creditor. On 16.06.2025, he had submitted that the negotiations are still

going on therefore, the case was adjourned for today.

3. Counsel for the appellant has produced the settlement agreement dated

07.07.2025 and submitted that the entire amount has been paid by way of

demand drafts, mentioned in paragraph 1.1 of the said agreement and the

appellant has also agreed to pay the CIRP cost.

4. In view of the settlement, Counsel for the parties have requested that

this appeal may be disposed of as having become infructuous but the IRP

may be directed not to take any further steps in terms of the order of the

CIRP.

5. The Parties have also submitted that application under Section 12A read

with Regulation 30A shall be filed before the Tribunal.

6. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present appeal is

hereby disposed of as infructuous by relegating the parties to the remedy of

filing an application in accordance with law for settlement before the

Tribunal.

7. Till the said application is heard and decided finally, the IRP is directed

not to take any further steps except the CoC takes a decision regarding the

payment of CIRP cost and refund of the EMD to the Prospective Resolution

Applicants (PRA).

[Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain] Member (Judicial)

[Justice Mohammad Faiz Alam Khan] Member (Judicial)

[Naresh Salecha] Member (Technical) sr/rr

This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.

Research this judgment with Miss Lucy

Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.

Try Miss Lucy free