Axis Bank Limited vs Mr. Rahul Jindal & Anr & Ors

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1887 of 2025 IN THE MATTER OF: Axis Bank Ltd. ...Appellant(s)

Versus Rahul Jindal & Anr. ...Respondent(s)

Present: For Appellant : Mr. Aayush Agarwala, Advocate.

For Respondents : Mr. Dhruv Dewan, Mr. Y. Sharma, Advocates for R2.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

19.02.2026 Heard Ld. Counsel for Appellant as well as Ld. Counsel

appearing for Committee of Creditors.

2. This Appeal has been filed against the order dated 14/10/2025 passed

in I.A. No 3173 of 2025. I.A. was filed by the Axis Bank, the Appellant

praying for reliefs, which has been quoted in Para 1 of the order, which is as

follows :-

ORDER

"1. Under consideration is an application filed on behalf of Applicant

- Axis Bank Ltd., under section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, read with rule 11 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016 with the following prayer: "9.1. Pass necessary orders and directions setting aside and quashing the decision of the CoC taken in its 21st meeting dated 02.04.2025 to revise and reduce the admitted claim and voting share of the Applicant.

"9.2. Pass such other orders and directions as this Hon'ble Court may deem appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case."

3. Adjudicating Authority, by the Impugned order has rejected the

Application, aggrieved by which order this Appeal has been filed.

4. Brief facts of the case to be noticed here is that in the Corporate

Insolvency Resolution Process of Sinnar Thermal Power Limited, the

Appellant has filed its claim for Rs. 12,91,87,54,896/- which included claim

of 8 crores towards the Bank guarantee issued at the behest of Corporate

Debtor for Mahanadi Coalfield Limited (MCL).

5. The Committee of Creditors in 21st COC Meeting held on 04/02/2025

decided manner of distribution, where it was proposed that this BG

component shall be excluded from the claim of the Appellant.

6. Subsequently, the Resolution Plan came to be approved by the

Committee of Creditors on 30/06/2025, which subsequently was approved

by the Adjudicating Authority on 28/11/2025.

7. Ld. Counsel for Appellant, challenging the order submits that the mere

fact that the dispute with regard to above bank guarantees are pending

before the Delhi High court in writ petition 15066 of 2022, that cannot be

any ground for excluding the amount of 8 crores towards the BG.

8. It is submitted that RP was aware of the proceedings. It is further

submitted that the mere fact that Appellant has approved the Resolution

Plan and cannot clothe the CoC to take a decision which is not in

accordance with law.

9. Ld. Counsel appearing for the CoC refuting the submission submitted

that distribution mechanism was approved with 88.9% vote share and the

Resolution Plan has also been approved, where Appellant is assenting 2 of 2 secured financial creditor. When the CoC has taken a decision to keep the

component of BG outside the distribution, no objection can be raised by the

Appellant who is bound by the decision of Committee of Creditors. It is

submitted that Plan has already been approved that the distribution shall be

as per the CoC's decision.

10. We have considered submissions of the Counsels for Parties and

perused the record. There is no dispute with regard to claim filed by the

Appellant and the fact that claim of Rs. 8 crores towards the Bank guarantee

issued at the behest of the Corporate Debtor. When the distribution

mechanism has been approved by the CoC, which was decided to keep the

BG component of the Appellant out of distribution and the said has also

approval of the Resolution Plan, we fail to see any ground on basis of which

appellant can attack the distribution mechanism.

11. The Resolution Plan has not been questioned or challenged by the

Appellant. And Appellant was assenting financial creditor. We also notice

that the reason for keeping the said bank guarantee from distribution was

pendency of writ petition No 15066 of 2022 in the Delhi High Court where

encashment of the BG was restrained by the High Court which proceedings

are still pending as submitted by the Ld. Counsel for Appellant.

12. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any error in the order rejecting

the Application.

2 of 2

13. With the above observations, Appeal is dismissed.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Indevar Pandey] Member (Technical) Prerana/md

2 of 2