Unity Small Finance Bank Ltd vs Abhishek Chowdhary
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 684 of 2026
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Adjudicating Authority, having directed the applicant to pay the Resolution Professional's fee within a fixed period and having been informed by the Resolution Professional of non-payment, has discretion to impose costs for non-compliance with that direction, and an appellate challenge to the exercise of that discretion is to be assessed on whether the imposition was within its discretion. Where the imposition of costs is within the Adjudicating Authority's discretion, the quantum of costs may be reduced in appeal having regard to the facts of the case, including that the default was subsequently cured within a short period.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE MATTER OF: Unity Small Finance Bank Ltd. ...Appellant
Versus
Abhishek Chowdhary ...Respondents
Present: For Appellant : Mr. Kanishk Khetan, Advocate. For Respondents :
With
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 688 of 2026
IN THE MATTER OF: Unity Small Finance Bank Ltd. ...Appellant
Versus
Abhishek Chowdhary ...Respondents
Present: For Appellant : Mr. Kanishk Khetan, Advocate. For Respondents :
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
16.04.2026: These two appeals have been filed against order dated
24.03.2026 passed by the NCLT, Ahmedabad Bench in I.A. No.448(AHM)2026
in C.P.(IB)/363(AHM)2025 and in I.A. No.447(AHM)2026 in
C.P.(IB)/361(AHM)2025.
Cont'd.../
2. Present is a case where Section 95 applications were filed by the
Appellant in which Resolution Professional was appointed on 28.01.2026 and
the Adjudicating Authority directed to deposit fee of Rs.2 Lakhs to the
Resolution Professional. Next date was fixed on 23.02.2026. On the next date
when matter was taken up Resolution Professional made complaint that he
has not received the fee. The Adjudicating Authority imposed cost of Rs.1
Lakh on the Appellant to be deposited in Prime Minister National Relief Fund
before next date of hearing and further to pay Rs.2 Lakhs to the Resolution
Professional within two days.
3. Appellant's case is that the Appellant has deposited the fee of Rs.2
Lakhs within two days as directed by the Adjudicating Authority and an
application was filed by the Appellant for waiver of cost i.e. I.A.
No.448(AHM)2026 in C.P.(IB)/363(AHM)2025 and another I.A.
No.447(AHM)2026 in C.P.(IB)/361(AHM)2025. The Adjudicating Authority by
the impugned orders has rejected the IAs for waiver of the cost, aggrieved by
which orders these appeals have been filed.
4. Learned counsel for the Appellant contended that the delay in deposit
of the fee was due to compliance of the KYC document, which were asked from
the Resolution Professional and delay was not deliberated and relevant
correspondence has also been placed before the Adjudicating Authority. It is
submitted that within two days from the order dated 23.02.2026 fees of Rs.2
Lakhs was paid, hence, it was the case where the Adjudicating Authority
ought to have waived the cost.
Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 684 & 688 of 2026 2 of 3
5. We have heard learned counsel for the Appellant and perused the
record. The prayer in the appeals is only with regard to waiver of cost, we see
no reason to issue notice to the Respondent. On 28.01.2026, the Adjudicating
Authority directed the Appellant to make payment of fee to the Resolution
Professional within a week and next date was fixed for 23.02.2026. When fee
was not paid, direction was issued for imposition of cost of Rs.1 Lakh. We are
of the view that it was well within the discretion of the Adjudicating Authority
to impose cost when Resolution Professional has made complaint.
6. In facts of the present case, we are of the view that cost of Rs.1 Lakh in
both the cases need to be reduced to Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand
Only), which may be deposited in Prime Minister National Relief Fund within
a week. Both the Appeals are disposed of.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) Archana/md
Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 684 & 688 of 2026 3 of 3
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free