Punjab & Sind Bank vs Umesh Singhal & Ors

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1827 of 2025 IN THE MATTER OF: Punjab & Sind Bank ...Appellants Versus Umesh Singhal, ...Respondents IRP of Supertech Township Project Ltd. & Ors.

Present: For Appellant : Mr. Nikhil Beniwal, Mr. Pulkit Duhan, Mr. Gyanendra Casshyap, Advocates. For Respondents : Mr. Virender Ganda, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vishal Ganda, Mr. Rabi Karmokar, Ms. Chhavi Jain, Mr. Rishabh Arya, Advocates a/w IRP in Person. Mr. Surender Singh, homebuyer a/w Mr. Rajiv Malik, AR of homebuyer.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

18.03.2026: Heard counsel for the appellant as well as Shri Virender

Ganda, Ld. Sr. Counsel appearing for the IRP.

2. This appeal has been filed against the order dated 10.10.2025 passed

by the National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi Bench-IV in IA No. 1601 of

2025. The appellant Punjab & Sind Bank has filed the IA praying for various

reliefs as noted in paragraph-1. The prayers in the paragraph-1 are as

follows:-

"a. Direct the Respondent to verify the claims of all the Creditors as per the Regulations and re-constitute the CoC; b. Direct the Respondent to not convene to further CoC meeting till proper verification of the claims of all the Creditors; c. Direct the Respondent to allow the Applicant and any authorized person on behalf of the Applicant to inspect the Claim Forms filed by the homebuyers (Secured financial creditors belonging to class of creditors) of the Corporate Debtor; d. Direct the Respondent to provide copies of the Claim Forms filed by the homebuyers (Secured financial creditors belonging to class of creditors) of the Corporate Debtor;

e. Pass such other Orders or directions as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."

3. Adjudicating Authority has heard the application and by impugned

order has rejected the application it was observed by the Adjudicating

Authority that Applicant has failed to establish any locus, illegality, or

procedural irregularity in the conduct of the IRP.

4. Ld. Counsel for the IRP made a statement that the resolution plan has

already been approved yesterday by the CoC and the appellant whose claim

was 100% accepted has also voted in favour of the plan. The resolution plan

having been approved by CoC now the matter has to be considered by

Adjudicating Authority when application is filed for approval of resolution

plan.

5. We are of the view that in view of these above facts, the issues raised in

the appeal has become infructuous. We only observe that it will be open for

the appellant to raise all permissible objections before the Adjudicating

Authority at the time of hearing of the plan approval application.

With the liberty aforesaid, we dismiss the appeal.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) harleen/MD

2 of 2 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1827 of 2025