Yash Dev Bhardwaj vs Ninaniya Estates Limited

IN THE MATTER OF: Yash Dev Bhardwaj ...Appellant Versus Ninaniya Estate Ltd. ...Respondent

Present: For Appellant : Present but appearance not marked.

For Respondent : Mr. Sonal Anand, Ms. Surbhi Singh and Mr. Aayush Sai, Advocates.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

19.02.2026 : This appeal has been filed by the appellant challenging the

order passed by the adjudicating authority rejecting the application filed by

the appellant for certain amendment in Part IV of the application.

2. Appellant filed the I.A. praying for change of date of default which was

mentioned in Part IV as 17.01.2025 by a typographical error and the appellant

by I.A.371/JPR/2025 prayed it to be corrected as 24.08.2021.

3. Adjudicating authority heard the application and rejected the same.

Adjudicating authority has also noted the submission that in the proceeding

the reply was filed by the corporate debtor on 17.01.2025 raising the issue of

date of default and there is fatal defects in the application, application was

filed on 26.06.2025 for seeking amendment.

4. Adjudicating authority after hearing the parties has rejected the

application holding that the grounds taken by the appellant that there is a

typographical error cannot be accepted. In paragraph 4 of the order,

adjudicating authority made following observations:

"4. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and appreciating the facts and the documents placed an record, is evident that in view of the Memo for Understanding dated 16.09.2019, 14 months period would have expired in November 2020. Thus, neither the initial date of default in 17.01.2021 given in Part IV is commiserating with the Memo of Understanding as was the case of the Applicants/Financial Creditor and nor is the proposed amended date i.e. 24.08.2021 established from the documents. Even if the case of the Applicant is taken as factually correct, then also the timing of the same and the manner in which the amendment is being sought is questionable. The attempt of the counsel is to state that the error in the date of default is a typographical inadvertent error, but on appreciation of the facts it is apparently evident that firstly the amendment is being sought after appreciating the case of the Corporate Debtor as the reply was filed much prior to the filing of the present IA. It in evidently an attempt to take away the valuable defence available to the Corporate Debtor.

The Financial Creditor/ Applicant is attempting to wriggle out of the legal bar of Section 10 A which cannot be permitted at this belated stage in view of the law established by the Hon'ble NCLAT and also the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The amendment if allowed is bound to take away a valuable right of the Corporate Debtor and hence the contention of the Applicant the no prejudice is going to be caused to the Applicant is factually incorrect. It is evident that the statement of the Applicant that the date of default mentioned in Part IV was a typographical error is factually incorrect and an attempt to bulldoze the statutory rights of the Corporate Debtor. Otherwise also the case of the Applicant is that the proposed date of default i.e. 24.08.2021 is the date of the addendum agreement which cannot be taken to be correct as the date i.e. 24.08.2021 is the date of the execution of the addendum agreement. Thus, by no stretch of Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 289 of 2026 & I.A. No. 1057 of 2026 2 of 4 imagination, the same can be said to be the date when the payment was to be made or when the default occurred.

Perusal of the addendum itself makes it abundantly clear that by way of this agreement dated 24.08.2021 the Financial Creditor had taken 12% stake in the equity of the Corporate Debtor and the amount was to be paid only after all the sale consideration of the project. The cause of action qua this addendum is to arise only after the sale consideration of the entire project. Thus, from the perusal of the fact & circumstances stated above, we are of the considered opinion that the present Application deserves to be dismissed."

5. Learned counsel for the appellant challenging the order submits that

there are various documents including Memorandum of Understanding (MoU)

from which the appellant can prove that date of default was 24.08.2021 and

even prior to that and it was by typographical error that 17.01.2021 was

mentioned. He submits that there was multiple date of default committed by

the corporate debtor.

6. After having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view

that no error has been committed by the adjudicating authority in rejecting

the application praying for change of date of default from 17.01.2021 to

24.08.2021 which has rightly been held not a typographical inadvertent error.

7. We thus are of the view that the order passed by the adjudicating

authority need no interference in exercise of appellate jurisdiction.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he seeks leave to file a

fresh Section 7 application. It is open for the appellant to make an application

seeking leave of the adjudicating authority for filing a fresh application and it

is for the adjudicating authority to decide it in accordance with law.

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 289 of 2026 & I.A. No. 1057 of 2026 3 of 4 With these observations, the appeal is dismissed.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Indevar Pandey] Member (Technical) himanshu/md

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 289 of 2026 & I.A. No. 1057 of 2026 4 of 4