Ideal Aurum Nirman Llp vs Yes Bank Limited

IN THE MATTER OF: Ideal Aurum Nirman LLP ...Appellant

Versus

Yes Bank Ltd. ...Respondent

Present: For Appellant : Mr. Pratham Mehrotra, Ms. Sonia Dube, Ms. Saumya Sharma, Advocates. For Respondent : Mr. Anand Shankar Jha, Mr. Abhilekh Tiwari, Ms. Nandika Kaushik, Advocates.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

30.07.2026: This appeal is filed against an impugned order dated

17.06.2026 as well as of dated 09.06.2026. The facts are, on 08.04.2026, the

Appellant had appeared before the learned NCLT and liberty was granted for

completion of pleadings prior to next date of hearing and thus the matter was

fixed for 09.06.2026. On 09.06.2026, further time was sought for filing reply

by the Corporate Debtor to petition under Section 7 of IBC filed by the

Respondent but the Court did not grant such time as the Corporate Debtor

had already availed two months' time and did not file reply, hence right to file

reply was closed by the order dated 09.06.2026. Thereafter, the reply affidavit

was later sent to the Respondent through email and an application for recall

was also filed, which application was dismissed on 17.06.2026 specifically

stating inter alia sufficient time was granted to the Appellant to file reply

Cont'd.../ affidavit and further the contours of Amended Act were also discussed as is

evident from Paras 14 to 18 of the impugned order, as under.

"14. It is pertinent to note the legislature took note of the delay in admission of applications filed under Section 7, 9 and 10 of the IBC Code, 2016. Consequently, the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 has been amended Government of India notification no. S. O 2625 dated 22.05.2026 and came into force with effect from 26.05.2026. The provision of Section 7 has been amended whereby sub-section (4) has been omitted and sub-section (5) has been substituted. The amended provision of Section 7 of the IBC Code 2016 read as under:

"(5) The Adjudicating Authority shall, within fourteen days of the receipt of the application under sub-section (2)., by an order-

(a) admit the application, if it is satisfied that a default has occurred and the application under sub-section (2) is complete, and there is no disciplinary proceeding pending against the proposed resolution professional; or

(b) reject the application, if it is satisfied that a default has not occurred or the application under sub-section (2) is incomplete or a disciplinary proceeding is pending against the proposed resolution professional:

Provided that the Adjudicating Authority shall, before rejecting the application under clause

(b), give a notice to the applicant to rectify the defect in his application within seven days from the date of receipt of such notice from the Adjudicating Authority:

Provided further that if the Adjudicating Authority has not passed an order under this sub-section within a period of fourteen days from the date of receipt of the application under

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1107 of 2026 2 of 5 sub-section (2), it shall record the reasons for such delay in writing.

Explanation I. --For the purposes of this sub- section, it is hereby clarified that where the requirements under clause (a) have been complied with, no other ground shall be considered to reject an application filed under this section.

Explanation II.--For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that where a record of default in respect of a financial debt owed to a financial institution recorded with the information utility has been furnished along with the application filed by such financial institution under this section, such record shall be considered sufficient for the Adjudicating Authority.

15. Thus, as per amended provision of Section, it has been provided in sub-section (5) that the Adjudicating Authority shall admit the application filed under Section 7 of IBC Code 2016 within 14 days from the date of receipt of the application if it is satisfied that default has occurred and the application under sub-

section (2) is complete and there is no disciplinary proceeding pending against the proposed resolution professional; or the reject the application if default has not occurred or application under sub-section (2) is incomplete or disciplinary proceedings is pending against the resolution professional.

16. Hon'ble Supreme Court in recent judgment in CA Ramchandra Dallaram Choudhary Vs. Adani Infrastructure and Developers Pvt. Limited (2026) ibclaw.in 428 SC, after considering the scheme and object of IBC Code, observed that:

"Having regard to the statutory scheme of the IBC, since validated by this Court in numerous decisions by holding that the strict timelines are

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1107 of 2026 3 of 5 meant to prevent misuse by dilatory tactics, it is difficult to accept Mr. Fernandes' contention. It is axiomatic that an appeal under Section 62 of the IBC to be regarded as having been instituted within the prescribed period of 45 (forty-five) days must be a defect-free appeal, which is capable of being acted upon by the Registry for being immediately placed before the appropriate Bench for consideration. Any appeal which is not filed within the stipulated period in a form shorn of defects, for all practical and legal purposes, remains a defective appeal".

17. No doubt as per provision of Rule 41, this Tribunal has to direct the registry to take reply affidavit on record; however, the Tribunal has to keep in mind the time frame within which the petition filed under Section 7, 9 or 10 has to be decided in order to solve insolvency of the Companies which is object of the IBC Code 2016.

18. In the present case, this Tribunal considered the request of Learned Counsel appearing for the Corporate Debtor and granted adjournment for filing the reply affidavit. However, the Corporate Debtor, despite availing more than four months' time, opted not to file reply affidavit and consequently) the stage for filing reply affidavit was closed vide order dated 09.06.2026."

2. It is submission of the learned counsel for the Appellant in view of the

judgment of this Tribunal an opportunity be granted to the Appellant to file

its reply and has quoted judgment dated 06.07.2026 of this Tribunal in

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.124 of 2026. However, the said judgment is

not applicable to the facts of the present case, as in the said case the company

petition was not reserved for judgment by the learned NCLT.

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1107 of 2026 4 of 5

3. We have being told in the present matter, the arguments have since

been heard and the matter is reserved for judgment, thus, we do not intend

to interfere in the impugned order. Appeal is dismissed. All pending

applications I.A. No.4333 and 4334 of 2026 are also disposed of.

[Justice Yogesh Khanna] The Officiating Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)

[Ajai Das Mehrotra] Member (Technical) Archana/MD

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1107 of 2026 5 of 5