Mrs.Anjali Anil Gupta vs Indian Bank
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1577 of 2025
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The appellate tribunal reasons that where a One Time Settlement has been accepted by the sole financial creditor, the corporate debtor's outstanding balance is being discharged under that settlement, and no other creditors are shown to exist, there is no justification for continuing proceedings under Section 95 against the personal guarantors; such proceedings may therefore be closed, with the financial creditor retaining liberty to revive them upon any default by the corporate debtor in the balance payments, and the impugned admission order is set aside on that basis.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE MATTER OF: Nirupama Yogesh Gupta ...Appellant Versus Indian Bank ...Respondent
Present: For Appellant : Mr. Manu Aggarwal and Ms. Ishita Pandey, Advocates.
For Respondent : Mr. Ritesh Patadia and Mr. Sumit Parikh, Advocates for R-2/RP.
WITH
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1581 of 2025 & I.A. No. 6209 of 2025
IN THE MATTER OF: Yogesh Roshanlal Gupta ...Appellant Versus Indian Bank ...Respondent
Present: For Appellant : Mr. Manu Aggarwal and Ms. Ishita Pandey, Advocates.
For Respondent : Mr. Ritesh Patadia and Mr. Sumit Parikh, Advocates for R-2/RP.
WITH
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1428 of 2025
IN THE MATTER OF: Manoj Haroim Gupta ...Appellant Versus Indian Bank ...Respondent
Present: For Appellant : Mr. Manu Aggarwal and Ms. Ishita Pandey, Advocates.
For Respondent : Mr. Ritesh Patadia and Mr. Sumit Parikh, Advocates for R-2/RP.
WITH
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1429 of 2025
IN THE MATTER OF: Anuj Roshanlal Gupta ...Appellant Versus Indian Bank ...Respondent
Present: For Appellant : Mr. Manu Aggarwal and Ms. Ishita Pandey, Advocates.
For Respondent : Mr. Ritesh Patadia and Mr. Sumit Parikh, Advocates for R-2/RP.
WITH
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1430 of 2025
IN THE MATTER OF: Rajani Ajay Gupta ...Appellant Versus Indian Bank ...Respondent
Present: For Appellant : Mr. Manu Aggarwal and Ms. Ishita Pandey, Advocates.
For Respondent : Mr. Ritesh Patadia and Mr. Sumit Parikh, Advocates for R-2/RP.
WITH
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1431 of 2025
Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1577, 1581, 1428 - 1431 of 2025 2 of 4 IN THE MATTER OF: Anjali Anil Gupta ...Appellant Versus Indian Bank ...Respondent
Present: For Appellant : Mr. Manu Aggarwal and Ms. Ishita Pandey, Advocates.
For Respondent : Mr. Ritesh Patadia and Mr. Sumit Parikh, Advocates for R-2/RP.
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
12.02.2026 : These appeals have been filed against the common order
dated 07.08.2025 passed by the adjudicating authority (National Company
Law Tribunal, Ahmedabad, Division Bench, Court - I), admitting Section 95
application.
2. In Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1577/2025, an I.A. No.629/2026 has been
filed along with which the letter dated 22.12.2025 of the Indian Bank has
been brought on the record, where Indian Bank has accepted the One Time
Settlement (OTS) proposal of Rs.3.25 crore.
3. Learned counsel for the RP submits that apart from Indian Bank there
are other creditors.
4. Appellant's counsel submits that under the OTS, two payments have
already been made and for two payments, the time is till March, 2026.
5. In view of the fact that OTS has already been entered and there are no
other creditors, we do not see any justification as on date to proceed with the
Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1577, 1581, 1428 - 1431 of 2025 3 of 4 proceedings under Section 95 which were admitted against the personal
guarantors, the appellants herein.
6. Counsel for the bank submits that bank has no objection withdrawing
the proceedings provided that liberty should be granted to the bank to revive
the proceedings before the NCLT, in event, if default is made in any payment
by the corporate debtor.
7. In view of the facts as noted above in the application, we see no reason
to continue the proceeding under Section 95 initiated against the appellant.
The proceedings under Section 95 against the appellants stand closed with
liberty to the bank, financial creditor to revive these appeals, in event, there
is any default committed by the corporate debtor in making the balance
payments.
8. In view of the above, the order impugned is set aside. Proceedings
under Section 95 initiated against the appellants are closed with liberty
aforesaid.
All the appeals are disposed accordingly.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) himanshu/md
Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1577, 1581, 1428 - 1431 of 2025 4 of 4
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