Sanjeev Kumar Jain vs Asset Reconstruction Company (India) ...

[Arising out of Order dated 30.04.2026 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi Bench, Court - II), in C.P. (IB) No.468/PB/2024]

IN THE MATTER OF: Sanjeev Kumar Jain (Suspended Director of Parsvnath Developers Limited) ...Appellant Versus Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd & Anr. ...Respondents

Present: For Appellant : Mr. Krishnendu Datta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Abhishek Anand, Mr. Rajat Juneja, Mr. Manoranjan Sharma, Mr. Arpit Dwivedi, Mr. Karan Rajpurohit, Ms. Sakshi Kapoor, Mr. Yash Tandon and Mr. Arjun Gaind, Advocates.

For Respondents : Mr. Abhijeet Sinha, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Meghna Mishra, Mr. Siddharth Joshi, Ms. Ujjnala Gupta and Mr. Shubham Madaan, Advocates for R-1.

Mr. Sandeep Bajaj, Mr. Vikas Maini, Mr. Ankit and Mr. Mayank Biyani, Advocates for RP.

Mr. Gaurav Mitra, Ms. Aakashi Lodha and Mr. Namanjeet Bhatia, Advocates for Intervener.

WITH

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 977 of 2026

[Arising out of Order dated 24.04.2026 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi Bench, Court - II), in C.P. (IB) No.465/ND/2024]

IN THE MATTER OF: Surya Mani Pandey Suspended Director of Noida Marketing Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellant Versus Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd. & Anr. ...Respondents Present: For Appellant : Mr. Abhishek Anand, Mr. Rajat Juneja, Mr. Manoranjan Sharma, Mr. Arpit Dwivedi, Mr. Karan Rajpurohit and Ms. Tina Aneja, Advocates.

For Respondents : Mr. Abhijeet Sinha, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Meghna Mishra, Mr. Siddharth Joshi, Ms. Ujjnala Gupta and Mr. Shubham Madaan, Advocates for R-1.

Mr. Sandeep Bajaj, Mr. Vikas Maini, Mr. Ankit and Mr. Mayank Biyani, Advocates for RP.

Mr. Gaurav Mitra, Ms. Aakashi Lodha and Mr. Namanjeet Bhatia, Advocates for Intervener.

ORDER

ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.

These two appeals have been filed by the suspended director of the

corporate debtors; Parsvnath Developers Limited and Noida Marketing Private

Limited, respectively. The Parsvnath Developers Limited is the principal

borrower with respect to which Noida Marketing Private Limited has given

corporate guarantee. By order dated 24.04.2026, Corporate Insolvency

Resolution Process ("CIRP") against the corporate debtor, Noida Marketing

Pvt. Ltd. has commenced, against which the Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.)

No.977/2026 has been filed. By order dated 30.04.2026, CIRP against the

corporate debtor, Parsvnath Developers Limited has been admitted by

appointing the Interim Resolution Professional ("IRP") and declaring the

moratorium. Challenging the order dated 30.04.2026, in C.P. (IB)

No.468/PB/2024, Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No.900/2026 has been filed.

2. Brief background facts, giving rise to these two appeals need to be

noticed:

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 900 & 977 of 2026 2 of 20 Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No.900/2026

i. Sammaan Capital Limited, the original lender sanctioned various loan

facilities to Parsvnath Developers Limited. First loan facility of ₹72 crore

was sanctioned on 26.03.2018 and thereafter six other loan facilities

were extended to the Parsvnath Developers Limited.

ii. Sammaan Capital Limited filed a C.P. (IB) 275/ND/2022 against

Parsvnath Developers Limited, which was withdrawn on 11.04.2022. A

fresh Section 7 petition C.P. (IB) No. 690/2023 was filed on 10.10.2023.

iii. Sammaan Capital Limited has also initiated proceedings under Section

9 of Arbitration & Conciliation Act 1996 before the Delhi High Court.

The Section 7 petition was disposed by the NCLT in view of pendency of

settlement talks. Sammaan Capital Limited also withdrew proceeding

under Section 9.

iv. On 13.07.2024, Sammaan Capital Ltd. filed a fresh Section 7

application C.P. (IB) 468/2024, claiming total amount of default under

the Loan Agreement of ₹942,26,92,456/-. Date of default was

mentioned as 05.03.2024.

v. Corporate debtor filed a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration &

Conciliation Act 1996 on 16.07.2024 before the Delhi High Court

seeking reconciliation.

vi. On 30.09.2024, Sammaan Capital Limited has assigned the debt to

Asset Reconstruction Company India Limited ("ARCIL").

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 900 & 977 of 2026 3 of 20 vii. On 30.12.2024 an email has been sent on behalf of the Parsavnath

Developers Limited to the Sammaan Capital Limited, proposing a

payment schedule for principal amount of ₹310 crore and ₹35.54 crore

as interest.

viii. Financial creditor on 17.02.2025, after receiving two demand drafts of

₹75,00,00,000 withdrew Section 7 application. ARCIL and Parsvnath

Developers Limited exchange Formal Restructuring Agreement.

Parsvnath Developers Limited has also withdrawn his Section 9 petition

before the Delhi High Court on 30.04.2025.

ix. On 16.07.2025, by an email, ARCIL informed the Parsvnath Developers

Limited that it will not proceed with the repayment schedule. Financial

creditor filed a revival application before the NCLT to revive Section 7

proceedings. Section 9 petition was filed before the Delhi High Court

by the Parsvnath Developers Limited to stay the email dated 16.07.2025

of the Parsvnath Developers Limited.

x. On 20.08.2025, NCLT allowed the revival application of financial

creditors and revived Section 7 proceeding.

xi. On 10.11.2025, NCLT after hearing the parties, reserved the orders on

Section 7 application on 10.11.2025.

xii. On 19.02.2026, Section 9 Arbitration Proceeding filed by Parsvnath

Developers Limited was dismissed by the Delhi High Court. Parsvnath

Developers Limited filed an application under Section 37, challenging

the order dated 19.02.2026, on which interim stay was granted on

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 900 & 977 of 2026 4 of 20 coercive action, subject to Parsvnath Developers Limited deposit ₹75

crore in High Court Registry.

xiii. On 10.03.2026 Parsvnath Developers Limited deposited only ₹25 crore

to Delhi High Court.

xiv. On 16.03.2026, corporate debtor submitted a repayment plan before

the Delhi High Court proposing payment of balance of ₹600 crore

subject to permission of sale of charge assets.

xv. In April 2026, Settlement Repayment Schedule of ₹750 crore was

exchanged between the parties. On 06.04.2026, NCLT listed Section 7

application for pronouncement of the order on request of the Parsvnath

Developers Limited that Parsvnath Developers Limited is proceeding to

settle the matter with financial creditor, the pronouncement was

deferred.

xvi. On 08.04.2026 Parsvnath Developers Limited, shared final schedule of

payment with ARCIL. On 08.04.2026 pronouncement was again

deferred to 16.04.2026.

xvii. On 16.04.2026 again request was made to the NCLT to defer the

judgement. On 16.04.2026, NCLT deferred the pronouncement of

judgement as a last opportunity to parties to bring final settlement, if

any. No settlement was entered between the parties and on 30.04.2026

adjudicating authority pronounced the order admitting Section 7

application appointing the IRP and initiating CIRP process. Challenging

the order dated 30.04.2026, Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No.900/2026 has

been filed.

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 900 & 977 of 2026 5 of 20 Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No.977/2026

i. Noida Marketing Private Limited stood as a corporate guarantor to the

loan facilities extended by Sammaan Capital Ltd. to the Parsvnath

Developers Limited.

ii. In appeal filed by the suspended director of the Noida Marketing Private

Limited, the fact as noted in Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 900/2026 has

been reiterated.

iii. On 24.05.2024, original lender has issued demand notices against loan

amount of the borrower as well as Noida Marketing Private Limited, the

corporate guarantor.

iv. C.P. (IB) No.465/2024 was filed by Sammaan Capital Limited under

Section 7 against the Noida Marketing Pvt. Ltd., the corporate

guarantor. In appeal filed by the suspended director of Noida Marketing

Private Limited, facts and details pertaining to the proceeding before the

Delhi High Court and NCLT has been reiterating, including the

correspondence and stage between the principal borrower and the

financial creditor.

v. Section 7 petition filed against the Noida Marketing Private Limited was

withdrawn on 17.04.2025, which was subsequently revived by the

NCLT.

vi. On 06.04.2026, Section 7 application was revived and listed for hearing

on 24.04.2026.

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 900 & 977 of 2026 6 of 20 vii. On 24.04.2026, the C.P. (IB) No.465/2024 has been admitted against

the Noida Marketing Private Limited, appointing IRP.

viii. Challenging the order dated 24.04.2026, admitting C.P. (IB)

No.465/ND/2024, Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No.977/2026 has been filed

by the suspended director of the corporate debtor, Noida Marketing

Private Limited.

3. We have heard learned Sr. counsel, Mr. Arun Kathpalia & Mr.

Krishnendu Dutta appearing for the appellants. Learned Sr. counsel, Mr.

Abhijeet Sinha has appeared for ARCIL. Learned counsel Mr Sanjeev Bajaj

has appeared for Resolution Professional ("RP"). Learned counsel Mr. Gaurav

Mitra has appeared for interveners.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant in support of the appeals submits

that in the present case, the corporate debtor has entered into settlement with

the financial creditor and was always ready and willing to make the payment

as per schedule discussed and agreed by both the parties reflected in the

email dated 30.12.2024 sent by the corporate debtor to the financial creditor.

No default towards payment has been made by the corporate debtor as per

settlement agreed. The payment plan as agreed between the parties was noted

by the adjudicating authority in its order, dated 17.02.2025, by which Section

7 application was allowed to be withdrawn by the financial creditor. The

corporate debtor did not default in payment as per payment schedule agreed

on 30.12.2024, but financial creditor unilaterally backed out by issuing an

email dated 16.07.2025. The present is not a case where any default is

committed by the corporate debtor in fulfilling its obligation. It is submitted

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 900 & 977 of 2026 7 of 20 that during pendency of the proceedings under Section 9 of the Arbitration &

Conciliation Act 1996, before the Delhi High Court corporate debtor has

undertaken to pay ₹75 crore. ₹25 crore was deposited before the Registry of

the Delhi High Court and subsequently an amount of ₹75 crore was paid when

proceedings were withdrawn on 17.02.2025. The corporate debtor has paid

an amount of ₹25 crore between 06.04.2026 and 15.04.2026, under bona fide

belief and impression that there is principal agreement to the revised schedule

of payment proposed between the parties. It is submitted that corporate

debtor having paid amount of ₹200 crore the financial creditor has backed

out from executing Formal Agreement. The present is not a case for initiating

any insolvency process against the corporate debtor, corporate debtor having

already paid an amount of ₹200 crore and had always been willing to make

the payment as per revised schedule proposed by the corporate debtor and it

is the financial creditor who is using the Section 7 proceeding as recovery

mechanism. There is no categorical finding regarding debt and default. On

30.04.2026, when adjudicating authority passed an order for admission,

WhatsApp message between the parties were being exchanged with respect to

repayment schedule of ₹750 crore. Even after admission of Section 7

application, appellant continued with the settlement talks. It is submitted

that the corporate debtor is a Real Estate Company, which is carrying out

various projects and initiation of CIRP can cause prejudice to the corporate

debtor.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent refuting the submissions of the

counsel for the appellants submits that although case of the appellant is that

there was settlement entered between the parties on 30.12.2024 as recorded

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 900 & 977 of 2026 8 of 20 in order dated 17.02.2025, but in Section 9 petition 330/2025 filed by the

corporate debtor before the High Court of Delhi, corporate debtor has

admitted that composite restructuring negotiated and agreed between the

parties could not be executed. Corporate debtor also acknowledged

outstanding instalment due and payable from April 2025 till June 2025,

amounting to ₹16.68 crore. Corporate debtor undertook to deposit ₹75 crore

in the Registry of Delhi High Court. Adjudicating authority has found the

debt and default prove. Adjudicating authority after considering all material

facts returned the finding that there is a debt and default in repayment of

amount, revival of Section 7 proceeding by order dated 20.08.2025 has never

been challenged by the appellant by filing an appeal. A pre-injunction

proceeding was filed before the Delhi High Court for staying proceeding before

the NCLT to revive the Section 7 application, in which proceeding no interim

relief was granted by the High Court. Even after order dated 20.08.2025,

reviving the Section 7 application, the order dated 20.08.2025 was challenged

by the corporate debtor before the Delhi High Court, which also came to be

dismissed by judgement dated 23.09.2025. Submission of the counsel for the

appellant that there was no basis for revival of Section 7 application are

without any merit. Revival of Section 7 has become final and cannot be

allowed to question. It is submitted that Delhi High Court orders passed in

proceeding initiated by corporate debtor itself under Section 9 of the

Arbitration & Conciliation Act 1996, noted that corporate debtor is

endeavouring to settle the dispute with the financial creditor, which is clear

proof of default. Before the adjudicating authority also time and again,

corporate debtor submitted that it is entering into settlement with the

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 900 & 977 of 2026 9 of 20 financial creditor. Adjudicating Authority on several occasions has postponed

the pronouncement of the judgement at the request of the corporate debtor,

that corporate debtor is to enter into settlement with the financial creditor.

Adjudicating authority noticed that no settlement has been entered between

the parties and has rightly proceeded to admit Section 7 application. Sanction

and disbursement of the loan is not even disputed. The submission of the

appellant that the loan granted by the financial creditor required

restructuring is not a ground on which admission of Section 7 can be denied.

Adjudicating authority in proceeding under Section 7 has to look into debt

and default. Debt and default having been proved, there is no error.

6. Learned counsel for the RP also submitted that in pursuance of the

publication made by the IRP, claims worth ₹800 crores has been received from

the homebuyers.

7. We have considered the submissions of the counsel for the parties and

perused the records.

8. The present is the case where Section 7 application C.P.

(IB)468/PB/2024 was permitted to be withdrawn by the order of the

adjudicating authority dated 17.02.2025. The order dated 17.02.2025 which

has been quoted by adjudicating authority in paragraph 8 of the impugned

order is as follows:

"8. During the pendency of the present petition viz. IB- 465/(PB)/2024, the FC and CD entered into settlement and Ms. Pooja Sehgal, Ld. Sr. Counsel for CD handed over demand drafts for an amount of Rs. 75 Crore to the Ld. Counsel for the FC. In the wake, the FC could withdraw the petition with liberty to seek revival of the

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 900 & 977 of 2026 10 of 20 same. The order dated 17.02.2025 passed by this Tribunal reads thus:-

ORDER The total amount of default alleged in the petition is Rs. 942,26,92,456/-. relevant excerpt in Part-IV of the applications reads thus:

2. AMOUNT A. The Corporate Debtor has CLAIMED TO repaid a sum of Rs.

BE IN 426,49,77,339/- (Rupees DEFAULT AND Four Hundred and Twenty- DATE OF Six Crores, Forty-Nine Lacs, WHICH THE seventy-Seven Thousands, DEFAULT Three Hundred and Thirty- OCCURRED Nine) from 26.03.2018 to (ATTACH THE 12.07.2024 under the Loan WORKINGS Agreement. FOR THE B. In view thereof, the total COMPUTATION amount in default due to the OF AMOUNT Applicant by the Corporate AND DAYS 40 Debtor under the Loan DEFAULT IN Agreements is Rs. TABULAR 942,26,92,456/- (Rupee FORM) Nine Forty-Two Crores, Twenty-Six Lacs, Ninety- Two Thousand Four Hundred and Fifty-Six) along with other Charges which include: i. Principal amount Rs. 452,34,19,608/ (Rupees Four Hundred and Fifty- Two Crores, Thirty- Four Lacs, Nineteen Thousand, Six Hundred and Eight) ii. Interest Due: 26,59,51,243/- (Rupees Twenty-Six Crore, Fifty-Nine Lacs, Fifty-One Thousand, Two Hundred and Forty- Three). iii. Other Charges: 438,32,90,363/- (Rupees Four Hundred and Thirty-

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 900 & 977 of 2026 11 of 20 Eight Crore, Thirty-

Two Lacs, Ninety Thousand, Three Hundred and Sixty-

Three).

iv. TDS: 25,00,31,782 (Rupees Twenty-Five Crore, Thirty-One Thousand, Seven Hundred and Eighty-

Two) C. Date of Default: On 05.05.2024, Corporate Debtor defaulted in payment/repayment of principal and/or interest due under the Loan Agreement D. Under clause 3.1.1 of the Loan Agreements, the Corporate Debtor agreed to repay/pay the entire loan and interest thereon to the Financial Creditor in such manner as agreed/specified by the Financial Creditor from time to time and/or as per the Payment/Repayment Schedule.

E. Accordingly, owing to the Corporate Debtor's default in payments under the loan facilities, on 08.07.2024, Financial Creditor issued notices recalling the entire loan facilities and called upon the Corporate Debtor to repay the total outstanding loan amount including interest, future interest, TDS and charges payable under the loan facilities within three (3) days.

F. In view of the fact that no response or payment was made by Corporate Debtor against the outstanding

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 900 & 977 of 2026 12 of 20 dues, therefore, the Financial Creditor is filing the instant Petition.

Today Ms. Pooja Saigal Id. Sr. Counsel appearing for Corporate Debtor viz. Parasvnath Developers Ltd. handed over demand drafts for the amount of Rs. 40,00,00,000/-(Demand Draft No.-200863) and Rs.35,00,00,000/- (Demand Draft No. 200862) to Mr. Sumesh Dhawan Ld. Counsel present for the Creditors and assured that the remaining amount on which the Creditor and Corporate Debtor have agreed to settle the defaulted amount would be paid as per the schedule agreed between the Creditor and the Corporate Debtor religiously without failing. The Counsels for the parties are ad idem that if the amount of debt is not repaid as per the schedule, the Petitioner who is seeking to withdraw the captioned petition today would be entitled to seek revival of the same. In view of the aforementioned, the petition is allowed to be withdrawn and is accordingly disposed of. Let a copy of this order be sent to Registrar General for maintaining data/record.

IA-4684/2024: In view of the order passed in IB- 468/2024 the IA has become infructuous."

9. Financial creditor filed an application to revive Section 7 application

claiming default, which revival application was allowed by order dated

20.08.2025. It is relevant to note that prior to passing of the order dated

20.08.2025, NCLT reviving Section 7 application, the corporate debtor has

filed proceeding under Section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996

before the Delhi High Court. The corporate debtor offered to make deposit of

₹75 crore which is noted in the order dated 26.09.2025 passed by the Delhi

High Court. It is an admitted fact that out of ₹75 crore as promised, corporate

debtor deposited only ₹25 crore to the registry and subsequently, it was before

the adjudicating authority, it was pleaded that the amount of ₹50 crore has

been paid.

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 900 & 977 of 2026 13 of 20

10. The adjudicating authority in the impugned order has noticed that twice

the adjudicating authority has listed the Section 7 application for

pronouncement, but on the request made by the counsel for the corporate

debtor, pronouncement was deferred. It is useful to notice the order passed

by the NCLT, by which pronouncement of judgement was deferred.

Adjudicating authority has noted the order passed on 08.04.2026 deferring

the pronouncement in paragraph 19 of the judgement which is as follows:

"19. On account of pendency of the proceedings before Hon'ble High Court as above, we could show sufficient indulgence and kept the proceedings pending for sufficiently long period. Even on 08.04.2026, when we were to pronounce the order, having come across the plea raised on behalf of the parties with reference to order dated 08.04.2026 (ibid), we deferred the pronouncement. The order dated 08.04.2026 reads thus:-

"On 06.04.2026 we passed by the following order:-

"(IB)-468(PB)2024 was listed for the pronouncement of the order therein.

Nevertheless, Mr. Manoranjan Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the Corporate Debtor submitted that the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court has passed an order that another amount of Rs. 25 Crores could be deposited by the Debtor with the registry of Hon'ble Delhi High Court would be released to the Creditor. According to him, another amount of Rs. 10 Crores would be paid to the Creditor during the course of the day. He submitted that, the debtor is keenly pursuing the matter to arrive at a settlement with the Financial Creditor regarding the amount of debt defaulted to be paid. At this stage, the Ld. Counsel for the Creditor submitted that he has no instruction from his client regarding the arguments advanced on behalf of the Corporate Debtor. Nevertheless, since the Corporate Debtor is striving to enter into settlement with the Financial Creditor

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 900 & 977 of 2026 14 of 20 regarding the amount of debt, we defer the pronouncement of order till 08.04.2026."

2. Today again Mr. Abh Today again Mr. Abhishek Anand, Ld. Counsel for Corporate Debtor present with Mr. Sanjeev Jain, Managing Director handed over a proposal to Ld. Counsel for the Financial Creditor and submitted that the management of the Corporate Debtor is in talk with the management of the Financial Creditor and there is a possibility that the parties will enter into some settlement. The Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that she has no instruction from her client, nevertheless, she will send the proposal to the Petitioner for its consideration.

3. Mr. Abhishek Anand also submitted that as could be noted in our order dated 06.04.2026 an amount of Rs. 25.00 Cr. deposited with the registry of Hon'ble Delhi High Court has been ordered to be released to the Financial Creditor. In his submission, besides the amount of Rs. 25.00 Cr. another amount of Rs. 21,49,20,750/- has also been paid to the Financial Creditor.

4. The Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that she is aware of the order of the High Court but has no information regarding the remaining amount of Rs. 21,49,20,750/-.

5. In view of the stand taken by the Counsels for the parties, we defer the pronouncement of the order which is ready for pronouncement since 06.04.2026 till 16.04.2026. It is made clear that parties should take their call regarding the settlement by that day and on next date we will not defer the pronouncement any further at any cost except in case of the settlement arrived at and Creditor concede before this Tribunal that settlement has been arrived at and steps are taken regarding the disposal of the matter. List on 16.04.2026."

11. The further pronouncement was deferred on 16.04.2026 which order

has been noticed in paragraph 21 of the impugned order, which is as follows:

"21. On 16.04.2026, again the counsels for the parties made reference to the proceedings pending before the Hon'ble High Court and sought adjournment. As it may have a due deference to the proceedings pending

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 900 & 977 of 2026 15 of 20 before Hon'ble High Court, we again deferred the pronouncement to 30.04.2026. The order dated 16.04.2026 reads thus:

"When the matter is listed for pronouncement, Mr. Abhishek Anand Ld. Counsel for the Applicant submitted that they are negotiating with the Creditor for settlement in respect of the amount defaulted to be paid. According to him the proposal given by the Debtor could not be taken up by the Creditor with its board for consideration. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the board qua the petitioner will take two weeks' time to meet and take a final view regarding the proposal for settlement. It is really a matter of concern that when the matter is listed for pronouncement thrice, the parties are taking no steps in between and only when the matter is listed for pronouncement of the order, only before the Court they talk of settlement. We are appalled and dismayed with such approach. However, since the objective of IBC is to resolve the insolvency of the Corporate Debtor and see that the value of Corporate Debtor is maximized, once both the Creditors and Debtors are of the view that the matter can be settled we defer the pronouncement by two weeks, subject to payment of cost of Rs. 5,00,000/- to be deposited in Prime Minister's National Relief Fund by the Corporate Debtor.

List on 30.04.2026 at 10:30 am.

It is directed that the matter should be listed on the top of the board only in the category of pronouncement order."

12. Adjudicating authority while deferring the pronouncement have noted

the submission of the corporate debtor stating that the settlement is taking

place between the parties and management of the corporate debtor is in talk

with the management of the financial creditor and there is a possibility that

parties may enter into some settlement.

13. The orders by deferring the pronouncement clearly thus record the

statement that there is possibility that parties will enter into some settlement.

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 900 & 977 of 2026 16 of 20 It was further stated by the corporate debtor that amount of ₹25 crore

deposited in the Registry of High Court has been ordered to release to the

financial creditor and that further amount of ₹21,49,20,750/- has been paid

to the financial creditor. The above statements recorded by the NCLT while

deferring the pronouncement clearly indicates that default by the corporate

debtor is not even contested rather corporate debtor was praying for deferring

the pronouncement in the hope of settlement to be entered with the financial

creditor. Adjudicating authority has further in paragraph of 28 of the

impugned order has noticed paragraph 5.8 of the reply of the corporate

debtor, where corporate debtor admitted that group of companies was still

require to pay an amount of ₹489.32 crore. The corporate debtor has claimed

its certain counter claim in paragraph 5.8 of the reply. The NCLT has correctly

relied on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'B. Prashanth

Hegde' Vs. 'State Bank of India & Anr.', in [Civil Appeal No.477/2022]

decided on 12.02.2026, where it was held that question of set of and counter

claim are to be considered at the stage of filing of proof. In paragraphs 23 &

24 of the impugned order a judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been

noticed, which paragraphs are as follows:

"23. As can be seen from the reply filed on behalf of the Respondents, their emphasis is on reconciliation of loan accounts, consideration of deductions, settlement between the parties and pendency of arbitral proceedings. So far as the reconciliation of loan accounts and adjustment of deductions are concerned, at best, the same can be considered as counter claim by the CD. As has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in B. Prashanth Hegde vs. State Bank of India and Anr. (Civil Appeal No. 477 of 2022) decided on 12.02.2026, the Hon'ble Supreme Court ruled that in so far as set off and counter claim is concerned, the same may be considered at the stage of filing of proof

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 900 & 977 of 2026 17 of 20 of claims during the resolution process by the RP. Para 37 of the judgment reads thus:

"37. In Swiss Ribbons (P) Ltd. case (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in so far as set-off and counterclaim is concerned, such set-off may be considered at the stage of filing of proof of claims during the resolution process by the Resolution Professional. In the present appeal, only counter claim has been made before DRT but no set off amount has been adjudicated upon. Moreover, any amount of counterclaim cannot retract from the fact of acknowledgement of the debts."

24. In the said judgment it could also be ruled that an application under Section 7 of IBC, 2016 hinges on a default on part of a CD of financial debt of an amount exceeding the specified threshold. In view of the judgment, the purpose of providing the date of default is to show that the debt is due and payable. Paras 40- 42 of the judgment reads thus:-

"40. Learned Counsels for Appellant and Respondent No.1 both have referred to the Master Circular No. RBI/2013- 14/62 DBOD No. BP. BC. 1/ 21.04.048/2013-14 dated July 1, 2013 (pp. 166-167 of written submissions and convenience compilation of appellant, Vol. I) with appellant interpreting its provisions regarding asset classification as NPA to be year 2010 from which the dates of default should be considered whereas Respondent No.1 claims that the year should be 2014. We agree with the argument of Ld. Senior Counsel of Respondent No.1 that while the asset classification of the restructured loan account would be governed as per applicable prudential norms regarding classification as NPA, insofar as acknowledgement of the debts is concerned they were implicitly present in working capital consortium agreements and other documents executed by the CD and banks and the debts were therefore alive at the time these agreements were entered into.

41. We now consider the contention of the Corporate Debtor that the amount of counterclaim raised against the banks by the Corporate Debtor being Rs.1500 crores which is much more than the amount of debt, hence there will be a net amount payable to the corporate debtor and not to

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 900 & 977 of 2026 18 of 20 the banks. Therefore, there is no debt in default and liable to be paid to the banks. We note that the counterclaim has not been decided and so it remains just a proposition yet to be adjudicated upon. Moreover, merely raising a counterclaim in DRT proceedings does not in any way detract from the fact that debts are acknowledged, and they are in default, and therefore liable to be paid by the Corporate Debtor as the application under Section 7 is found to be within limitation.

42. We are convinced by the argument of Respondent No.1 that the date of NPA of the debt due to SBI is 31.1.2010 only for the purposes of the RBI guidelines. The actual date to default is the dates on which NPAs were initially declared by respective banks with 28.5.2014 for SBI, 30.6.2014 for PNB, 10.10.2014 for Corporation Bank and 31.12.2014 for UCO Bank, since the debts of respective banks were acknowledged by the CD till those dates. This is so because during the period from 2010 to 2014 when efforts were made by the four banks and the Corporate Debtor to restructure the debts, there was admission and implicit acknowledgment of the debts by the Corporate Debtor.""

14. The submission of the counsel for the appellant that appellant was

ready to make payment as per payment schedule as was finalised on

30.12.2024 cannot be treated a ground to accept the submission that there

is no default on the part of the corporate debtor. Default on the part of the

corporate debtor is well proved from the material brought on the record, even

on admission and various efforts made by the corporate debtor before the

Delhi High Court as well as before the NCLT to bring on record settlement

with the financial creditor in which he failed are ample proof of debt and

default on the part of the corporate debtor.

15. We thus are of the view that admission of Section 7 application on

default committed by corporate debtor cannot be faulted. Adjudicating

authority having found debt and default proved has rightly admitted Section

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 900 & 977 of 2026 19 of 20 7 application. Coming to the order dated 24.04.2026 passed by the

adjudicating authority, admitting Section 7 application against the corporate

guarantor Noida Marketing Private Limited, we having found the debt and

default on the part of the principal borrower and the recall notice had already

been issued against the corporate guarantor Noida Marketing Private Limited,

no exception can be taken for admission of Section 7 application against the

corporate guarantor Noida Marketing Private Limited. We thus are of the view

that no grounds have been made out to interfere with the impugned orders

dated 30.04.2026 and 24.04.2026.

Both the appeals are dismissed.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)

NEW DELHI

29th May, 2026

himanshu

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 900 & 977 of 2026 20 of 20