Flint Group India Private Limited vs Cj Shah & Co

IN THE MATTER OF: Flint Group India Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellant Versus C J Shah & Co. ...Respondent

Present: For Appellant : Mr. Krishnendu Dutta & Mr. Abhijeet Sinha, Sr. Advocates with Mr. Nitesh Jain, Ms. Samrudhi Chothani, Ms. Angelika Awasthi, Mr. Kevin Santhosh, Mr. Ish Dutt, Mr. Harsh Gurbani and Mr. Arjun Gain, Advocates.

For Respondent : Mr. P. Nagesh & Mr. Saurabh Soparkar, Sr. Advocates with Mr. Parth Gokale, Mr. Prateek Gupta, Mr. Shalin Jani, Ms. Apeksha and Ms. Rachna Dubey, Advocates.

WITH

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 524 of 2026

IN THE MATTER OF: Flint Group India Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellant Versus C J Shah & Co. ...Respondent

Present: For Appellant : Mr. Krishnendu Dutta & Mr. Abhijeet Sinha, Sr. Advocates with Mr. Nitesh Jain, Ms. Samrudhi Chothani, Ms. Angelika Awasthi, Mr. Kevin Santhosh, Mr. Ish Dutt, Mr. Harsh Gurbani and Mr. Arjun Gain, Advocates.

For Respondent : Mr. P. Nagesh & Mr. Saurabh Soparkar, Sr. Advocates with Mr. Parth Gokale, Mr. Prateek Gupta, Mr. Shalin Jani, Ms. Apeksha and Ms. Rachna Dubey, Advocates. ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

18.03.2026 : These two appeals have been filed by the same appellant

challenging the order dated 06.03.2026 & 13.03.2026 respectively passed by

the adjudicating authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Division Bench,

Court - I, Ahmedabad) in C.P. (IB) No.35(AHM)/2026.

2. The Section 9 was application filed by the respondent herein which

came to be heard on 06.03.2026, on which date, Court passed order

permitting the corporate debtor to deposit the amount involved in the present

matter in the name of Assistant Registrar, National Company Law Tribunal,

Ahmedabad. In paragraph 6 of the order, following was directed:

"6. Considering the rival submissions and in order to safeguard the interest of both the parties at this stage, the Respondent/Corporate Debtor is directed to deposit the amount involved in the present matter in the name of the Assistant Registrar, National Company Law Tribunal, Ahmadabad Bench, in the form of a Fixed Deposit within a period of three (3) days from the date of this order."

3. The appellant before us, who is the corporate debtor deposited the

amount by confirmation letter dated 10.03.2026 and filed an affidavit on

11.03.2026. On 13.03.2026 when the matter came for consideration

following order was passed by the adjudicating authority:

"Today, the matter is again taken up for hearing, and we have heard the concluding arguments from both sides and perused the records The written submissions have already been filed by both sides Further, Ld Sr. Counsel for the respondent has filed an affidavit on 11 03.2026, vide inward diary No.D-2158, which consists of Annexure R-3, a third deposit confirmation letter dated 10.03.2026 of Rs 1,24,85,667.00 in favor of the Assistant Registrar of this Tribunal Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 521 & 524 of 2026 2 of 5 However, the affidavit contains certain conditions specially mentioned in paragraph No. 8, whereas vide order dated 06.03.2026, this Tribunal directed the respondent/corporate debtor to deposit an amount involved in the present matter in the name of the Assistant Registrar in the form of a fixed deposit within a period of three days only Hence, the same cannot be taken on record, and accordingly, the same is returned in original to the respondent/corporate debtor with direction to the Assistant Registrar to release the fixed deposit to the respondent/corporate debtor forthwith. The order is reserved."

4. The submission of the counsel for the appellant is that in pursuance of

the order dated 06.03.2026, appellant was directed to deposit the entire

amount which amount was deposited. It is submitted that with respect to

release of the amount, in the affidavit paragraph 8 has been mentioned which

has been noticed by the adjudicating authority. It is submitted that the said

paragraph 8 of the affidavit in no manner can be a reason for directing that

amount be taken back from the Assistant Registrar of the Registry. It is

submitted that the statement made in paragraph 8 was not with regard to any

condition of deposit rather it was with regard to release or remittance to the

operational creditor as was mentioned in paragraph 8. It is submitted that

remittance or payment by corporate debtor was not in the hands of the

corporate debtor, due to various orders sanctions as noticed in the affidavit.

5. Learned Sr. counsel Mr. P. Nagesh appearing for the operational

creditor submits that the matter has been heard and order is reserved. He,

however submits that operational creditor has no objection if the amount

deposited may remain with deposit before the Assistant Registrar.

6. We have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the records.

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 521 & 524 of 2026 3 of 5

7. It is an admitted fact between the parties that in pursuance of the order

dated 06.03.2026 the corporate debtor has deposited the amount of

Rs.1,24,85,667/- within the time allowed. The paragraph 8 of the affidavit

which has been mentioned by the adjudicating authority in the order dated

13.03.2026 is as follows:

"8. In view of this binding legal prohibition, the Respondent most humbly submits that the amount deposited pursuant to the directions of this Hon'ble Tribunal ought not be released, or remitted to the Operational Creditor, as long as:

a. the U.S. primary sanctions under E.O. 13846 continue to apply Lo the Operational Creditor; b. the Operational Creditor continues to remain in the SDN List;

and c. CJ Shah does not have any

licence/authorization from the OFAC, permitting remittance by the Respondent to the Operational Creditor.

Any release of the deposited amount to the Operational Creditor prior to the satisfaction of all of the above conditions would expose the Respondent to U.S. sanctions risks."

8. What has been stated in paragraph 8 was submission of the corporate

debtor that the amount ought not to be released or remitted to the operational

creditor so long as:

"a. the U.S. primary sanctions under E.O. 13846 continue to apply Lo the Operational Creditor; b. the Operational Creditor continues to remain in the SDN List; and c. CJ Shah does not have any licence/authorization from the OFAC, permitting remittance by the Respondent to the Operational Creditor."

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 521 & 524 of 2026 4 of 5

9. We are of the view that paragraph 8 of the affidavit as noted above could

not have been any reason to direct for refund of the amount to the corporate

debtor who has deposited the same under the order of the Court.

10. Counsel for the appellant further submits that affidavit which has been

referred to in the impugned order has been directed to be returned.

11. We are of the view that direction of the order dated 13.03.2026 insofar

as it directs the amount deposited to be returned to the corporate debtor and

not accepting the affidavit is set aside. The amount deposited shall remain in

deposit before the Assistant Registrar which has also been agreed by the

operational creditor.

12. The order having already reserved by the adjudicating authority, it is

for the adjudicating authority to take a decision after considering the deposit

made and the affidavit dated 10.03.2026.

13. In view of the aforesaid, appellant need not take return of the amount

deposited as well as the affidavit. It shall be open for the parties to bring into

the notice of the Court the order passed in these appeals. We, however, make

it clear that this order need not be treated any reason for re-hearing.

14. The order dated 13.03.2026 is modified as above.

Both the appeals are disposed of accordingly.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) himanshu/md

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 521 & 524 of 2026 5 of 5