Miss Lucy
← All judgments

In the matter of RICHA INDIA INFRA DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED

National Company Law Tribunal16 February 2026

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

Where a settlement entered into during pendency of an appeal against an admission order under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 has been cancelled by the financial creditor on the corporate debtor's default, and the parties had consented to revival of the CIRP in the event of such failure, the Tribunal may revive the Company Petition and the CIRP initiated by the admission order, and direct the Interim Resolution Professional to proceed in accordance with law, where the corporate debtor shows no reason why revival should not be ordered.

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

Judgment

As delivered

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNALMUMBAI BENCHCOURT-IVItem No.: 13IA-2090/2025 in C.P.(IB)/776(MB)/2023CORAM:SHRI ANIL RAJ CHELLAN SHRI K. R. SAJI KUMARHON'BLE MEMBER (TECHNICAL) HON'BLE MEMBER (JUDICIAL)ORDER SHEET OF THE HEARING (HYBRID) HELD ON 16.02.2026NAME OF THE PARTIES: EDEL WEISS ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPA NYLIMITEDvsRICHA INDIA INFRA DEVELOPMENT PRIVATELIMITED

For Applicant: Adv. Ayush Rajani a/w Adv. Khushboo Shah i/b AKR Legal. For Resp. : Adv. N. Jain a/w Adv. Pashin Ichhapora i/b ANB Legal.

Sections 7, 60(5) of IBC.

ORDER

IA-2090/2025 1. The present Application has been filed by the Original Applicant for reviving the C.P.(IB)/776(MB) 2023, in view of the failure of the settlement entered into between the Applicant and the Corporate Debtor.

2. The facts leading to the filing of the present Application are that on an application filed by the Applicant under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the Corporate Debtor was admitted to the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) by this Tribunal vide order dated 06.12.2023. The said Admission Order was challenged by the Suspended Director of the Corporate De ~\V. Jt, Contd ..... 2 ....~.. .. ---, ·,. ~ 16.0 2. 2026/pvs ,r.-<1nl ,f '

IA-2090/2025 in C.P.(IB)/776(MB)/2023

: 2:

During the pendency of the Appeal, the Applicant approved a settlement proposal vide letter dated 28.03.2024, under which the Corporate Debtor agreed to pay Rs. 45.50 Crore in tranches payable by 30.09.2024. The settlement letter entered into between the parties was taken on record by the Hon'ble NCLAT, and the appeal was disposed of vide order dated 12.04.2024.

3. The Applicant submits that the Corporate Debtor has made part payment amounting Rs. 34,53,23,093/-; however, failed to make the last installment of Rs. 11 Crore and accrued interest of Rs. 1,88,89,694/-, which became due on 30.09.2024. It is submitted that, despite being granted several extensions, the Corporate Debtor has failed to clear the overdue amount pursuant to the settlement. Consequently, the Applicant vide letter dated 02.01.2025 cancelled the settlement, and contends that it is a fit case to revive the present Company Petition and to proceed with the CIRP of the Corporate Debtor. 4. The Corporate Debtor entered appearance and sought repeated adjournments to file reply to the Application. The records reveal that the reply lodged by the Corporate Debtor/Respondent remains defective in the DMS. 5. We have heard the Ld. Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records. It is observed that there is no dispute amongst the parties as regards the facts of the case. The only contention raised by the Corporate Debtor is that the Income Tax Department froze the Bank accounts of the 16.02.2026/pvs

IA-2090/2025 in C.P.(IB)/776(MB)/2023 : 3: could not make the remaining payment despite having arranged for the same. It is submitted that the Corporate Debtor's account has since been unfrozen and it would be able to discharge the remaining debt owed to the Applicant. It is further submitted that a substantial portion of the settlement amount has already been paid, and that dragging the Corporate Debtor to CIRP would unduly prejudice its rights. 6. We observe that the settlement between the parties has already been cancelled, resulting in the absence of any valid settlement in existence between the parties. Furthermore, the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant contends that sufficient time has already been granted to the Corporate Debtor, and no further extensions can be granted to the Corporate Debtor for discharging the liabilities when the settlement has already been withdrawn by the Applicant. 7. It is pertinent to observe that the parties have unequivocally consented to the revival of the CIRP initiated by the order dated 06.12.2023 in the event of failure of the settlement agreed between the parties. There is no contention regarding the default under the agreed settlement. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the Corporate Debtor has failed to show any reason not to revive the CIRP order of this Tribunal. Consequently, we hereby revive the CIRP initiated vide order 06.12.2023 and direct Mr. Sandeep D. Maheshwari (IRP) to take steps in the CIRP in accordance with law. Accordingly, IA.No.2090/ allowed and C.P.(IB)/776(MB)2023 is revived. Sd/- Sd/- ANIL RAJ CHELLAN K. R. SAJI KUMAR MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Certified True Copy MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Copy lssu · " 011 _ 16.0 2.2 026/pvs ___,~=-+.-..:;__:_..1...---r-

1stant Registrar National Company Law Tribunal Mumbai ilench

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