Indian Bank vs Mrs. Sneha Dharmendra Shah & Ors

Indian Bank ...Appellant(s)

Versus

Mrs. Sneha Dharmendra Shah & Anr. ...Respondent(s) Present: For Appellant : Mr. Ritesh D. Patadia, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Sumit Parikh, Advocate for RP.

With Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1457 of 2026

IN THE MATTER OF:

Indian Bank ...Appellant(s)

Versus

Dharmendra Shah & Anr. ...Respondent(s) Present: For Appellant : Mr. Ritesh D. Patadia, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Sumit Parikh, Advocate for RP.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

[Per: Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan (Oral)]

19.08.2026 : Heard Ld. Counsel for the Appellant as well as Ld. Counsels

for the Respondent No. 1 and 2. Perused the record.

2. The CA (AT) (Ins) No. 1454 of 2026 has been preferred by the Appellant

-Indian Bank against the impugned order dated 08.07.2026 passed by

National Company Law Tribunal, Ahmedabad in IA/1034(AHM)2026 moved 2

in CP (IB)/127(AHM)2025 and CA (AT) (Ins) No. 1457 of 2026 has been moved

by appellant against the impugned order of the same date passed in

IA/1035(AHM)2026 moved in CP (IB)/125(AHM)2025 whereby the request of

the Appellant-Bank for extension of time has been rejected by the Ld.

Adjudicating Authority.

3. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant submits that on an application filed by

the Appellant-Indian Bank under Section 95 of the Code the PIRP was started

against the Respondent No. 1 i.e. Personal Guarantor vide order dated

20.02.2026 passed by Ld. Adjudicating Authority and the Resolution

Professional of the Personal Guarantor was appointed.

4. It is further submitted that public announcement was accordingly made

on 27.02.2026 and the last of date of submission of claims was filed on

19.03.2026.

5. It is further submitted that after collating the claims, the CoC was

constituted and the first meeting of the creditors was held on 02.04.2026

which was incidentally adjourned to 06.04.2026 and after a lot of negotiations

ultimately in the 4th meeting of the creditor held on 05.05.2026 which was

adjourned to 29.05.2026 the guarantor submitted a combined re-payment

plan of Rs. 3,27,50,000/- plus PIRP cost to be paid within 90 days and having

regard to the submission of plan the sole member of the creditor suggested

for vetting the re-payment plan and took some time.

6. It is further submitted that the 5th meeting of the creditor was held on

26.06.2026 wherein the RP proposed to approve or reject the repayment plan

as submitted by the Personal Guarantor and the sole member of creditor

resolved to extend the PIRP period for another 60 days beyond 120 days from 3

21.06.2026 which had earlier expired on 20.06.2026. Considering that the

financial creditor in principle has approved the Resolution Plan and certain

approvals are required from the Competent Authority and also that the e-

voting may take some days and in the meantime the creditor suggested that

the RP may put the re-payment plan on e-voting till 06.07.2026 and the RP

was requested to file an appropriate application for PIRP extension before the

Ld. Adjudicating Authority.

7. It is further submitted that in pursuance of this decision two

applications being IA No. 1034/2026 and IA No. 1035/2026 were separately

filed in aforesaid petitions by the RP which have been rejected by the Ld.

Adjudicating Authority by passing the impugned orders of date 08.07.2026.

8. It is vehemently submitted that the Bank in Principle has approved the

re-payment plans submitted by the guarantors and it was only the approval

was required and the time was also required by the Bank for getting the

approval of appropriate authority and also for the purpose of e-voting,

however the Ld. Adjudicating Authority without considering these facts in

right perspective, passed an order rejecting the request of the RP for extension

of the PIRP's.

9. It is thus requested that further 60 days be provided for the completion

of the whole process in the above PIRP's.

10. Ld. Counsel for the guarantors however submits that guarantor's

sincerely wants to settle the dispute and has offered repayment plans and

after much deliberations it was agreed that the amount of Rs. 3,27,50,000/-

would be paid to the Sole Creditor and therefore since approval was not

obtained by the financial creditor above applications were moved before the 4

Ld. Adjudicating Authority and when everything had settled between the

parties the Ld. Adjudicating Authority should have allowed the applications

and should have granted the requisite time extension of time.

11. Ld. Counsel for the RP says he would abide by whatever the order may

be passed by this Appellate Tribunal.

12. Having heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and having perused the

record, it is reflected that Appellant is a Financial Creditor and Respondent-

Guarantors after initiation of proceedings under Section 95 of the Code, after

much deliberations, the guarantors and financial creditor had arrived at

settlement as the re-payment plans submitted by the guarantors were in

principle approved by the financial creditor, however certain approvals were

required to be taken from the appropriate authority by the financial creditor

and in this regard some time appears to have been consumed and only for

this purpose, on the basis of consensus arrived at between the parties the IA

No. 1034/2026 and IA No. 1035/2026 was moved by the RP's before the Ld.

Adjudicating Authority requesting to extend the time of PIRP's by 120 more

days which have been rejected.

13. We have considered all the facts and circumstances of this case, and

find merit in the submissions made by Ld. Counsel for the Appellant as well

as in the submissions made by Ld. Counsel for the Respondent- Guarantors

that the re-payment plans submitted by the guarantors were in principle were

approved by the financial creditor and only approval of the appropriate

authority of the Bank has remained. The purpose of the PIRP is for repayment

of loan to the financial creditor and when the repayment plans proposed by

the guarantor were in principle approved by the financial creditor, after much 5

deliberations and only approval of the appropriate authority of the financial

creditor had remained, the Ld. Adjudicating Authority should have extended

reasonable time for completion of the whole process.

14. Thus for the reasons given herein before, we find merit in the appeals

and the same are allowed. The impugned judgments are set aside. The PIRP

period with regard to the aforesaid PRIP's proceedings is extended for further

45 days, from today and in this extended period the whole process of these

PIRP's would be completed by the parties.

15. There is no order as to costs.

16. Pending I.A.'s if any are also disposed of.

[Justice Mohammad Faiz Alam Khan] Member (Judicial)

[Naresh Salecha] Member (Technical) sr/mr