Kamaldeep Tripathi vs Idbi Bank Limited & Ors

IN THE MATTER OF: Kamaldeep Tripathi ...Appellants Versus IDBI Bank & Anr. ...Respondents

Present: For Appellant : Mr. Krishnendu Datta Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ashish Choudhury, Mr. Abhishek Arora, Advocates. For Respondents : Mr. Anand Varma, Ms. Apoorva Pandey, Adv. Ayusti Gupta and Mr. Palavarapu Sai Charan, Advocates for IDBI Bank. Mr. Chitranshul A. Sinha, Mr. Shivam Shorewala, Ms. Rakshita Bhargava and Ms. Esha Sharma, Advocates for Intervener/ J.C. Flower.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

27.01.2026: Heard counsel for the appellant.

2. This appeal has been filed against the order dated 12.12.2025 by which

Section 7 application filed by the IDBI Bank Ltd. has been admitted. IDBI

Bank has filed an application under Section 7 for an amount of

Rs.50,22,31,631/- till 31.03.2024; date of default was mentioned as

29.09.2019. In the Section 7 application notices were issued and application

was heard and by the impugned order dated 12.12.2025 Section 7 application

has been admitted. During pendency of the proceeding under Section 7

application was heard on 19.11.2025 and the order reserved. During

pendency of Section 7 application, an OTS was entered between the parties

and sanctioned on 29.09.2025 for an amount of Rs.18.24 crores. Upfront payment of Rs.2.90 crores on 25.09.2025 and the balance amount was to be

payable in three equal monthly instalments within 90 days from the date. Till

29.12.2025 the entire amount was required to be paid as per OTS. The appeal

was filed challenging this order. On 18.12.2025 this Tribunal passed following

order:-

"O R D E R (Hybrid Mode)

18.12.2025: Counsel for the appellant submits that bank has accepted an OTS for Rs.18.24 crores on 29.09.2025 under which within three months the entire amount of Rs.18.24 crores have to pay. Appellant has paid initial amount of Rs.2.9 crores only. The submission of the counsel for the appellant is that OTS has been noticed by the Adjudicating Authority in the impugned order and despite the fact that period under OTS has not come to an end, order has been passed admitting corporate debtor in the CIRP.

2. Ld. Counsel appearing for the bank submits that appellant has not paid the amount which was due in October and November. Be as it may, according to own case of the appellant the entire amount was to be paid by 29.12.2025. We are of the view that the appeal need to be taken on the reopening on 05.01.2026.

3. The appellant may file an affidavit on re-opening of the court bringing on record the details of the payments made of remaining amount in terms of the OTS.

List on 05.01.2026.

In the meantime, no steps shall be taken in pursuance of the order dated 12.12.2025."

2 of 6 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 2017 of 2025

3. Again the matter was taken on 05.01.2026 where the counsel for

respondent submitted that the payment has not been made as noticed in

earlier order interim order was not extended.

4. Ld. Counsel for the appellant challenging the order submits that till the

OTS continued to operate i.e; till 29.12.2025 there was no default on the part

of the corporate debtor to admit Section 7 application. Ld. Counsel for the

appellant has referred to terms and conditions of the OTS and submits that in

view of the aforesaid terms and conditions Adjudicating Authority ought not

to have admitted Section 7 application and there being no default on the part

of the corporate debtor, Section 7 application could not have been admitted.

Ld. Counsel for the appellant has referred to the OTS dated 29.09.2025 and

certain clauses of agreement including Clause 4, Clause- 11 and Clause- 17.

5. We have considered submissions of the counsel for the appellant and

perused the records.

6. Section 7 application was filed by the IDBI Bank claiming in default of

Rs. 50,22,31,631/- and the date of default was mentioned on 29.09.2019 and

the OTS between the parties was entered on 29.09.2025 which OTS directed

as follows:

"IN DUPLICATE WITHOUT PREJUDICE Ref. No. IDBI/NMG/LKO/LOVPL/2025-26/1157 SEPTEMBER 29, 2025 The Director Laxmi Oil and Vanaspati Pvt. Ltd. Factory address: 97, Khan Chandpur, Near Umran Dhaba, Rania Akbarpur, Kanpur Dehat (U.P.)- 209304

3 of 6 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 2017 of 2025 Registered address: 704, Kan Chambers, 7th Floor, 14/113, Civil Lines, Kanpur-208001

Dear Sir,

Laxmi Oil and Vanaspati Private Limited One time Settlement (OTS) of Dues- Letter of Approval

Please refer to your letter dated May 20, 2025 and September 19, 2025 offering an amount of Rs.18.24 crore towards full and final settlement of dues in respect of your loan account (A/c-0141655100000408) and subsequent discussions you / your representatives had with us on the subject. Upon considering your request, IDBI Bank is agreeable, in principle, for settlement of dues (OTS/NS) as under, subject to other terms and conditions mentioned in Annexure-I.

1 Sanction Amount Rs.18.24 Crore 2 Payment Schedule Particulars Amount (Rs. crore) Upfront payment (already paid as 2.90 on September 25, 2025) Balance amount shall be payable in 15.34 3 equal monthly instalments within 90 days from the date of LOA.

Total 18.24 3 Payment of interest 1) On OTS amount as per payment schedule - Nil

2) On delayed payment - @1 Yr MCLR+2% as on COD.

Acceptance of delayed payment shall be at the absolute discretion of IDBI Bank. In case of default in adhering to the terms and conditions of OTS, IDBI Bank shall have right to revoke the OTS package and restore the original liabilities.

2. The offer is valid for 30 days from the date of this letter. You are therefore requested to return the duplicate copy of this letter, duly signed

4 of 6 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 2017 of 2025 confirming acceptance of the terms and conditions of OTS within the validity period. Failing such acceptance, the approval shall stand automatically revoked unless IDBI Bank in its sole discretion expressly extends the validity.

Kindly acknowledge receipt.

Yours faithfully For IDBI Bank Limited

Authorised Signatory Accepted, For Laxmi Oil and Vanaspati Pvt. Ltd.

Director"

7. Admittedly, under the OTS the payment schedule was provided apart

from Rs.2.90 crores which was upfront payment no other payment has been

made by the appellant. Under the payment schedule the balance amount was

payable in three equal monthly instalments within 90 days i.e; 29.12.2025,

when no monthly instalment for October and November was paid the breach

of OTS was very much committed by the CD, which fact, that October and

November instalment was not paid was also noticed in the argument of the

bank in our order dated 18.12.2025.

8. It is not the CD's case that they have complied the OTS. Reliance has

been placed on para-11(ii) that it was agreed between the parties that both

bank borrower and guarantor shall keep on hold the legal actions and

enforcement actions during compliance of OTS. Clause -11(ii) is as follows:-

"11(ii) The Bank and the borrower/guarantor shall keep on hold the legal action proceedings and enforcement actions during compliance of OTS/NS terms. However, in the event of default/ delay, the parties are entitled to revive or continue the legal proceedings enforcement actions."

5 of 6 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 2017 of 2025 The above clause cannot come into the aid of the corporate debtor where it

was clearly mentioned that in event the default/ delay, the party are entitled

to revive and continue the legal proceedings. The present is not a case where

borrower has taken any legal action or enforcement action during compliance

of the OTS.

9. Present was a case where Section 7 application was initiated much

before, in the year 2024 and it was not the bank which was taking any legal

actions against the borrower. Moreso, when the second line of the clause 10,

11.2 itself provide that in event of default/delay, the parties are entitled to

revive or continue the legal proceedings/ enforcement action. Thus there was

no prohibition on the bank in proceeding with Section 7 application. The said

clause does not come to the aid of the appellant and cannot be said that in

view to that Clause Section 7 proceeding could not have been proceeded. The

reliance of Clause of 17 by the appellant also does not help the appellant

since present is a case where CD was itself in default of the OTS. We thus do

not find any error in the order, admitting Section 7 application. Appellant

having not complied with the OTS, the resolution of the CD is necessitated

under the IBC and its Regulations.

The appeal is dismissed.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) harleen/MD

6 of 6 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 2017 of 2025