Canara Bank vs Sumeet Kumar Somani

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 61 of 2026 & I.A. No. 218 of 2026 IN THE MATTER OF: Canara Bank ...Appellants Versus Sumeet Kumar Somani ...Respondents

Present: For Appellant : Mr. K.S. Sunil Kumar, Advocate. For Respondents : None

WITH Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 76 of 2026 & I.A. No. 262 of 2026 IN THE MATTER OF: Canara Bank ...Appellants Versus Shankarlal Somani ...Respondents

Present: For Appellant : Mr. K.S. Sunil Kumar, Advocate. For Respondents : None

WITH Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 77 of 2026 & I.A. No. 263 of 2026 IN THE MATTER OF: Canara Bank ...Appellants Versus Gangadevi Somani ...Respondents

Present: For Appellant : Mr. K.S. Sunil Kumar, Advocate. For Respondents : None WITH Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 78 of 2026 & I.A. No. 264 of 2026 IN THE MATTER OF: Canara Bank ...Appellants Versus Rajkumar Somani ...Respondents

Present: For Appellant : Mr. K.S. Sunil Kumar, Advocate. For Respondents : None

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

22.01.2026: I.A. No. 218, 262, 263 & 264 of 2026 Sufficient cause has been shown for condonation of 2/3 days delay in

filing the appeal. Delay is condoned.

CA (AT) (Ins) Nos. 61, 76, 77 & 78 of 2026

2. These appeals have been filed against the order dated 17.10.2025

passed by National Company Law Tribunal, Ahmedabad, Court-II rejecting IA

No. 1215(Ahm)/2025 and another applications against four personal

guarantors who were respondent herein. The application was filed under

Section 95 by the Canara Bank against the personal guarantors which came

to be dismissed by order dated 18.09.2025 by the Adjudicating Authority

holding the application to be beyond prescribed period of limitation. The said

order was passed by the Adjudicating Authority considering the application as

well as reports submitted by the Resolution Professional after the aforesaid

rejection of the application under Section 95; recall application, IA

1218/Ahm/2025 and other applications have been filed which have been

rejected by the impugned order giving rise to this appeal.

3. The Adjudicating Authority has rejected the recall application on the

ground that recall application is not maintainable and the applicant had to

2 of 3 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) Nos. 61/2026, 76/2026, 77/2026 and 78/2026.

take necessary recourse by challenging the order as per procedure. Counsel

for the appellant challenging the order submits that although recall

applications were rejected but certain observations have been made in fourth

paragraph which may prejudice the rights of the bank.

4. We have considered the submission of counsel for the appellant and

perused the records.

5. The Section 95 application filed by the personal guarantors who were

respondents in these appeals were heard and dismissed by order dated

18.09.2025. When the order was passed by Adjudicating Authority on merits

dismissing the applications, no review or recall application could have been

filed by the bank. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Greater Noida Industrial

Development vs. Prabhjit Soni has categorically laid down the grounds on

which recall can be entertained. Present is a case where none of the grounds

for recall were made out. Adjudicating Authority thus rightly has rejected the

applicant as not maintainable.

6. We only observe that application having been dismissed as not

maintainable any observation made in the order may not prejudice any case

of the bank in other proceedings.

With these observations, we dismiss above all appeals i.e; CA (AT) (Ins)

Nos. 61/2026, 76/2026, 77/2026 & 78/2026.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) harleen/MD 3 of 3 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) Nos. 61/2026, 76/2026, 77/2026 and 78/2026.