Nirmal Singh vs Indusind Bank Ltd. & Ors

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 583 of 2026 IN THE MATTER OF: Nirmal Singh ...Appellant(s)

Versus IndusInd Bank Ltd. & Anr. ...Respondent(s)

Present: For Appellant : Mr. Arun Kathpalia, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Abhijeet Sinha, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Anupam Lal Das and Mr. Abhijeet Sinha, Sr. Advocates with Mr. Raj Kamal, Mr. Aseem Atwal, Mr. Arush Khanna, Mr. Manish Kumar Sharma, Mr. Somil Jain, Advocates.

For Respondents : Ms. Usha Singh, Mr. Ishwar Pohapatra, Mr. Animesh Pandey, Advocate for R1.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

07.08.2026 This appeal is against an impugned order dated 16/03/2026

passed by the Ld. NCLT, New Delhi, Bench-II in CP(I.B.) No 404/ND/2025

whereby the Personal Insolvency Resolution Process against the appellant was

initiated by allowing an Application of Respondent No. 1 filed under Section 95(1)

of the IBC r/w Rule 7 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy (Application to

Adjudicating Authority for Insolvency Resolution Process for Personal Guarantors

to Corporate Debtors) Rules, 2019.

2. It is the submission of the Ld. Senior Counsel for Appellant after filing of

the proceedings under Section 95, a Report was filed by the Resolution

Professional under Section 99 sub-section (vii) and (x) of the IBC and per Section

99, the Resolution Professional was to give a copy of the report prepared under

sub-section (vii) to the debtor and to the creditor.

3. Such report was filed on 17/10/2025, with a copy to the Appellant. The

appellant also filed an Application bearing No. I.A. 5896/2025 on 29/11/2025 in

respect of settlement. The report of the Resolution Professional records, upon

examination of the petition under Section 95 and considering the fact the entire

debt is under the settlement stage between the Personal Guarantor and the sole

creditor i.e., IndusInd Bank, appropriate orders may be passed by the Tribunal

and in its Paragraph 10, it again notes the Personal Guarantor is proceeding for

settlement with the Bank and it did not recommend admission of Personal

Insolvency as it may cause severe consequences to the Personal Guarantor.

4. Similarly worded was the Application I.A. 5896/2025 filed by the appellant,

wherein in Paragraph 6, it was recorded the representative of the financial

creditor has issued an e-mail dated 25/11/2025 duly acknowledging the receipt

of the proposal submitted by the Appellant and it being deliberated by the Bank

internally. Further, a reference was made to an Order dated 03/12/2025 passed

by the Ld. NCLT where, in view of the report of the Resolution Professional as well

as on an Application filed by the appellant herein above, the Company Petition

was deferred so as to enable the Parties to arrive at a settlement.

5. It is the submission of the Ld. Sr. Counsel for Appellant in between an

addendum was filed by the Resolution Professional which came up for hearing on

16/03/2026, which copy was never served to upon the appellant herein and

without hearing the appellant on such addendum, the impugned order was

passed. Ld. Sr. Counsel for Appellant submits no opportunity to file a Reply to

such addendum was ever granted and hence being against the principles of

natural justice, the impugned order ought not to have been passed, more 2 of 4 especially in the wake of an earlier report dated 17/10/2025 of the Resolution

Professional, in view of the pendency of the appellant's application bearing No.

I.A. 5896/2025 dated 29/11/2025 and without considering the earlier order

dated 03/12/2025 of the Ld. NCLT itself. It was argued the hearing of IA.

5896/2025 was rather deferred to enable the parties to arrive at a settlement.

6. Upon filing of this appeal, an order was passed by this Tribunal on

27/03/2026, which notes the Ld. Counsel for the Bank submits the bank is

taking steps to consider the proposals; hence this Tribunal directed the order

dated 16/03/2026 of the Ld. NCLT be not given effect to till the next date of

hearing.

7. Now the Ld. Counsel for the sole financial creditor submits the settlement

has been arrived at between the parties; the entire payment is made and nothing

is done. Further there is also an affidavit dated 22/07/2026 of the Resolution

Professional on record which reveals no other creditor has filed any claim against

the appellant herein. Thus considering the entire gamut of facts viz the violation

of natural justice; the affidavit of Resolution Professional and the sole creditor

admitting the matter being amicably settled, we see no reason to continue with

the proceedings against the appellant, hence while setting aside the impugned

order dated 16/03/2026, we close the Personal Insolvency Resolution Process

against the appellant.

Appeal is disposed of in terms of the above.

3 of 4 The pending Applications also stands disposed of.

[Justice Yogesh Khanna] The Officiating Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)

[Ajai Das Mehrotra] Member (Technical) Prerana/md

4 of 4