Uco Bank vs Mr Rupinder Singh

IN THE MATTER OF: UCO Bank ...Appellant

Versus

Rupinder Singh ...Respondent

Present: For Appellant : Mr. Naveen Kumar, Advocate

For Respondent : Appearance not marked

And

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1191 of 2026

IN THE MATTER OF: UCO Bank ...Appellant

Versus

Rupinder Singh ...Respondent

Present: For Appellant : Mr. Naveen Kumar, Advocate

For Respondent : Appearance not marked

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode) 27.07.2026

I.A. No. 4511 of 2026 in Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1179 of 2026

Heard Learned Counsel for the Appellant. Perused the record. Keeping in

view the averments made in the application, we are of the considered view that the

delay of 10 days which has occurred in refiling the appeal is explained and then

the delay accessed in refiling is hereby condoned. The application stands allowed.

Page 1 of 8

I.A. No. 4512 of 2026 in Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1191 of 2026

Heard Learned Counsel for the Appellant. Perused the record. Keeping in

view the averments made in the application, we are of the considered view that the

delay of 17 days which has occurred in refiling the appeal is explained and then

the delay accessed in refiling is hereby condoned. The application stands allowed.

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1179 of 2026 & Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No.

1191 of 2026

2. Heard Learned Counsel for the Appellant and perused the record.

3. Both the aforesaid appeals Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1179 of 2026 and

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1191 of 2026 are being disposed of by passing this

impugned order as the same are connected with the one and same proceeding

pending before the Learned Adjudicating Authority.

4. Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1179 of 2026 has been filed against the order

dated 17.04.2026 passed in I.A. No. 4511 of 2026 moved in Company Petition (IB)

No. 643/ND/2025 and Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1191 of 2026 has been filed

against the order dated 24.04.2026 passed by Learned Adjudicating Authority in

the same proceedings.

5. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that, pursuant to a query raised

by Learned Adjudicating Authority pertaining to placing on record any proof with

regard to the invocation of guarantee, the Appellant was commanded to bring on

record an affidavit and also to file a copy of the letter of invocation. However, the

Appellant sought to withdraw the application moved under Section 95 of the Code,

with the liberty to file a fresh application, and has requested for this prayer before

the Learned Adjudicating Authority on 17.03.2026. However, Learned Adjudicating

Page 2 of 8 Authority did not grant any such liberty to the Appellant and imposed a cost of Rs.

50,000/- for non-compliance of the order dated 02-12-2025.

6. It is further submitted that another I.A. No. 1601 of 2026 was filed by the

Appellant before the Learned Adjudicating Authority to waive the cost of Rs.

50,000/-, imposed vide order dated 17-03-2026, and also to permit the Appellant

to withdraw the petition filed by it under Section 95 of the Code. However, by

passing order dated 24-04-2026, instead of waiving the cost earlier imposed, the

Learned Adjudicating Authority enhanced the same to Rs. 75,000/-.

7. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that, by passing order dated 02-

12-2025, the Appellant was only directed to file a copy of the letter of invocation

while the case of the Appellant was that by issuance of a demand notice, as

provided under Regulation 7 of the IBBI (Bankruptcy Process for Personal

Guarantors to Corporate Debtors) Regulations, 2019 invocation of guarantee has

been made. However, instead of adjudicating this issue the insistence was made to

comply the order dated 02-12.2025, and when a request was made by the

Appellant to permit them to withdraw the application filed under Section 95 of the

Code with the liberty to file a fresh petition the cost of Rs. 50,000/- was imposed,

unnecessarily and when an application was moved to waive this cost the same was

also rejected vide order dated 17-04-2026, and vide order dated 24-04-2026, the

cost of Rs. 50,000/- has been further enhanced to Rs. 75,000/-.

8. It is further submitted that the Appellant is willing to withdraw the

proceedings pending before the Learned Adjudicating Authority, with the liberty to

file the fresh proceeding under Section 95 of the Code.

9. Keeping in view the order intended to be passed by us, we dispense with the

issuance of notice to the Respondent, as the same would not affect their rights in

any manner.

Page 3 of 8

10. A perusal of the record reflects that, on 17-03-2026, following order was

passed by the Learned Adjudicating Authority;

"Mr. Navin Kumar, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of

Applicant-UCO Bank seeks to withdraw the present application with

liberty to file afresh application.

We may note that vide order dated 02.12.2025 passed by this

Adjudicating Authority, the Applicant was directed to file a copy of the

letter of invocation. The said order has not yet been complied with.

The Applicant instead of complying with the order dated

02.12.2025, is now seeking to withdraw the present application filed

under Section 95 of the Code, with liberty to file afresh application.

In view of the latest development, we are not inclined to grant

any such liberty. However, the Applicant is at liberty to file an affidavit

seeking withdrawal of the present matter. We also deem it appropriate

to impose a cost of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) to be

deposited in Prime Minister's National Relief Fund by Applicant for

non-compliance of the order dated 02.12.2025, within one week. Proof

of deposit of cost shall be filed thereafter.

List the matter on 24.04.2026."

11. Thereafter, I.A being 1601 of 2026 was moved by the Appellant where on the

first impugned order dated 17-04-2026, was passed which is also reproduced as

under;

"This application has been filed seeking the following prayers:-

Page 4 of 8

a) Allow the present Application and waiver of the cost of Rs.

50,000/ - imposed vide Order dated 17.03.2026 passed by this

Hon'ble Adjudicating Authority. In view of the non-filing of the letter

of invocation in compliance of order dated 02.12.2025, which was

neither deliberate nor intentional but occurred due to the facts and

circumstances stated above:

b) Recall the order dated 17.03.2026, whereby this Hon'ble

Adjudicating Authority declined to grant liberty to file fresh

Application after withdrawal of the present Application and allow

the Applicant to withdraw the present Company Petition (IB) No.

643/ ND/ 2025, with liberty to file afresh, after removal of

aforesaid discrepancies; and

c) Pass any such further orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem

fit and proper in light of the circumstances of the case.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we

are of the view that the Applicant has not shown sufficient reasons for

waiving of the cost of Rs. 50,000/- imposed vide order dated

17.03.2026. Therefore, the present application stands dismissed.

The Applicant is directed to comply with the order dated

17.03.2026, within one week."

12. The record further reflects that on 24-04-2026 the Learned Adjudicating

Authority has passed the following order;

"Learned Counsel on behalf of the Applicant is present. In terms of

order dated 17.03,2026 and 17.04.2026 cost imposed by this

Adjudicating Authority has not been deposited by the Petitioner so

Page 5 of 8 far. It shows the intent of the Petitioner who has no respect and

honour for the order passed by this Adjudicating Authority. Learned

Counsel sought further time to pay the cost. Cost can be paid within a

period of one week. However, the cost amount 'shall be Rs. 75,000/-

instead of Rs. 50,000/-.

List the matter on 29.05.2026 for compliance."

13. If all the aforesaid orders passed by the Learned Adjudicating Authority are

read conjointly, it will emerge that, at first direction was given by the Learned

Adjudicating Authority to the Appellant on 02-12-2025, to file a copy of letter of

invocation and it has been submitted by Learned Counsel for the Appellant, before

us they were relying, so far as the invocation of guarantee is concerned, on the

notice issued to the Respondent under Regulation 7 of the PG to CD Regulations

2019, and they have also sought the relief of withdrawal of the application moved

under Section 95 of the Code with the liberty to file the fresh petition, however,

instead of permitting them to withdraw the application, cost of Rs. 50,000/- was

imposed which was later on enhanced to Rs. 75,000/-vide order dated 24-04-2026.

14. We are of the considered view that a petitioner who is approaching any court

of law is a master of his plaint or petition and unless and until there is a legal

defect which is required to be cured, he cannot be compelled to amend his

pleadings in accordance with the wish and will of the court and since the Appellant

had requested to consider their claim of invocation of guarantee in a particular way

the same should have been considered by the Tribunal and the application filed by

the Appellant should have been disposed in accordance with law. However, the

Applicant/Appellants may not be compelled to amend their petition in a particular

way against their will.

Page 6 of 8

15. Secondly, when a sincere prayer of withdrawal of the proceedings has been

made by the Appellants, though it was not mandatory on the part of the Learned

Adjudicating Authority to accept the same, however, having regard to the practice

prevalent in the courts of law, such liberty should have been granted, if the same

was not causing any undue hardship to the other party.

16. Be that as it may in our considered opinion there was no occasion before the

Learned Adjudicating Authority to have imposed the cost of Rs. 50,000/- on the

Appellant and to further enhance it to Rs. 70,000/-.

17. It is to be recalled that the application before the Learned Adjudicating

Authority was moved by a nationalised bank and no need to emphasise that banks

are the custodians of the public money. Otherwise also the cost should not be

imposed as the matter of routine unless and until there are exceptional cases.

Simultaneously the Public Authorities and institutions, including Banks are also

duty bound to follow the directions given by the courts with utmost sincerity and

dedications and being public institutions they must comply the directions of the

court with utmost diligence and sincerity.

18. Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the

considered view that at first the cost of Rs. 50,000/- has been unnecessarily

imposed by the Learned Adjudicating Authority vide order dated 17-03-2026, and

without any basis has been further enhanced to Rs. 75,000/- vide another

impugned order dated 24-04-2026. Resultantly both the impugned orders may not

with stand the test of law and are liable to be set aside.

19. Having regard all the facts and circumstances of the case and for the

reasons given hereinbefore, the impugned orders dated 17-03-2026 and 24-

04.2026 are hereby set aside.

Page 7 of 8

20. We provide an opportunity to the Appellant Bank to move an appropriate

withdrawal application before the Learned Adjudicating Authority within 14 days

from today. If such an application is filed within the period stipulated hereinbefore

the Learned Adjudicating Authority would be under an obligation to pass an

appropriate order strictly accordance with law after providing opportunity of being

heard to the parties.

21. Both the appeals are thus allowed.

22. There is no order as to costs.

23. Pending I.A. if any are also disposed of.

24. Having regard to the mandatory recruitment of filing certified copy of the

impugned order, we permit the Appellant to file certified copy of both the impugned

orders before the Office of the Registry of this Appellate Tribunal within 30 days. In

the event the certified copies are filed within the aforesaid period, the Office shall

keep the same on record.

[Justice Mohammad Faiz Alam Khan] Member (Judicial)

[Naresh Salecha] Member (Technical)

KS/MR

Page 8 of 8