Sanjeev Mahajan vs Nimitaya Hotel & Resorts Ltd & Ors & Ors

Sanjeev Mahajan ....Appellant Vs.

Nimitaya Hotel & Resorts Ltd. & Ors ...Respondents For Appellant Mr. Inderbir Singh Alag, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Nakul Mohta, Mr. Manoranjan Nayak, Mr. Hitesh Nagar, Mr. Kumar Anurag Singh, Mr. Zain A. Khan, Mohd. Abran Khan, Advocates.

For Respondents Mr. Sumesh Dhawan, Mr. Ajay Kumar, Mr. Pankaj Sethi, Mr. Vijayant Goel, Mr. Sagar Thakkar, Ms. Kavya Takriwal, Advocates for SRA Mr. Abhishek Anand, Mr. Karan Kohli, Ms. Palak Kalia, Mr. Manoj, Ms. Ridhima Malhotra, Ms. Shruti Srivastva, Advocates for RP Mr. Navneet Gupta, RP in person Mr. Anant Gautam, Mr. Aman Gahlot, Mr. Rishi Chauhan, Advocates for Indian Bank

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

15.09.2026: This Appeal is filed against an impugned order dated

05.06.2026 passed by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law

Tribunal) New Delhi, Principal Bench (Single) whereby Transfer Application

filed by the Appellant seeking transfer of CP(IB) No.1913 of 2019 titled as

"Indian Bank (Erstwhile Allahabad Bank) vs. Nimitaya Hotel & Resorts Limited"

along with all connected interlocutory applications to any other appropriate

Bench was dismissed vide the impugned order dated 05.06.2026 on the

ground there was no proper disclosures made to the fact similar Transfer 2

Application No. TA(IBC)29(PB)/2023 for transfer of the petition filed previously

was not disclosed as the said application was dismissed being not pressed vide

order dated 20.10.2023. Further, a recall application viz. RA No.56 of 2026

was moved to recall the order dated 05.06.2026 before the Ld. NCLT and it

was also dismissed vide order dated 10.07.2026.

2. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the Respondent has referred to

judgment in "Imbulle Realtors Pvt. Ltd. vs. Sanjay Kumar, Director (Power

Suspended) of Realanchor Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.- Company Appeal

(AT) (Insolvency) No.934 of 2025" which says the Appeal in present form is

not maintainable as the Appeal ought to be filed under Section 421 of the

Companies Act, 2013 instead of Section 61 of the IBC. He has referred to the

following paragraphs of the judgment as follows:-

"9. The NCLT Rules 2016 provides for function of the president. Rule 16(d), which is relevant is as follows:

"16. Functions of the President. In addition to the general powers provided in the Act and in these rules the President shall exercise the following powers, namely:-

(d) transfer any case from one Bench to other Bench when the circumstances so warrant"

10. Section 2(90) of the Companies Act defines Tribunal means NCLT constituted under Section 408 of the Act. Section 408 of the Act provides for constitution of NCLT. Section 419 of the Act provides for benches of the Tribunal. Section 419(3) is as follows:

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1590 of 2026 & I.A. No. 6096 of 2026 3

"419. Benches of Tribunal. (3) The powers of the Tribunal shall be exercisable by Benches consisting of two Members out of whom one shall be a Judicial Member and the other shall be a Technical Member:

Provided that it shall be competent for the Members of the Tribunal authorised in this behalf to function as a Bench consisting of a single Judicial Member and exercise the powers of the Tribunal in respect of such class of cases or such matters pertaining to such class of cases, as the President may, by general or special order, specify:

Provided further that if at any stage of the hearing of any such case or matter, it appears to the Member that the case or matter is of such a nature that it ought to be heard by a Bench consisting of two Members, the case or matter may be transferred by the President, or, as the case may be, referred to him for transfer, to such Bench as the President may deem fit."

12. Section 61 of the IBC as noticed above provides for an appeal against order passed by adjudicating authority under Part II of the IBC. Order passed by President under Rule 16(d) cannot be said to be an order passed under Part II of the IBC, however, in view of the provisions of Section 421 as noticed above the appeal against an order passed by President under 16(d) is fully maintainable under Section 421 of the Companies Act, 2013. We, thus accept the submission of the Respondent No. 1 that appeal against an order

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1590 of 2026 & I.A. No. 6096 of 2026 4

of the Tribunal is not maintainable under Section 61. However, appeal being maintainable under Section 421 of the Act and the present appeal has also been filed within the time as allowed under Section 421 of the Act, we proceed to consider the submission of the parties on merits."

3. At this stage, it is submitted by the Ld. Senior Counsel for the Appellant

let the Appeal be treated as one filed under Section 421 of the Companies Act.

In any case, since the application for transfer has been rejected on the ground

of non-disclosure as also its recall application having been dismissed, we find

no cause to interfere qua a reasoned order passed by the Ld. NCLT. The Appeal

has no merit and is accordingly dismissed. The Appellant may avail alternative

remedy, if any, qua subsequent facts. Pending applications viz IA No.6093 of

2026, IA No.6094 of 2026, IA No.6096 of 2026 and IA No.6095 of 2026 are also

disposed of.

[Justice Yogesh Khanna] Officiating Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) Anjali/md

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1590 of 2026 & I.A. No. 6096 of 2026