National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Dismisses Restoration Applications for Appeals Due to Non-Compliance with OTS. The court found that the appellants could not revive their appeals as they failed to comply with the One Time Settlement terms, leading to the dismissal of their applications.

Tribunals: National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Bench: New Delhi
  • 2
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal dealt with three restoration applications filed by personal guarantors of a principal borrower against Indian Bank. The appeals were initially dismissed on 16.10.2025 as infructuous following a One Time Settlement (OTS) agreement between the principal borrower and the bank. The appellants sought to revive the appeals after the bank rejected the OTS due to non-payment of agreed installments. The court noted that the principal borrower was required to pay a total of Rs. 4.60 Crore, with specific deadlines for installments. The appellants had only paid Rs. 46 lakhs and failed to meet subsequent payment deadlines, leading to the bank's application for bankruptcy proceedings against them. The court emphasized that the liberty to revive the appeals was granted only if the settlement failed due to the bank's fault, not the appellants'. Since the appellants were at fault for not complying with the OTS, their applications for revival were dismissed, affirming that they could not benefit from their own non-compliance. The decision was made after considering the submissions from both parties and reviewing the relevant provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. The applications were ultimately dismissed as lacking substance.

Headnote

A) Insolvency Law - Restoration of Appeals - Conditions for Revival - Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Sections 95, 100 - The court held that the liberty to revive appeals was contingent upon the failure of the settlement due to the bank's fault, not the appellants'. The appellants failed to comply with the OTS terms, thus their applications for revival were dismissed. (Paras 27-28).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the restoration applications for the appeals can be granted despite the failure to comply with the terms of the One Time Settlement.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The applications for revival of the appeals were dismissed as the appellants failed to comply with the terms of the One Time Settlement, and thus could not take advantage of their own wrong.

Law Points

  • Restoration of appeals
  • One Time Settlement
  • Personal Guarantors
  • Bankruptcy Proceedings
  • Insolvency Resolution Process
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2026 LawText (NCLAT) (09) 40

Restoration Application (AT) No. 21 of 2026 in Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1258 of 2024

2026-09-30

Justice Mohammad Faiz Alam Khan, Naresh Salecha

Mr. Gautam Singhal, Mr. Om Pal, Mr. Rajat Chaudhary, Ms. Anjali Maurya, Ms. Kriti Agrawal, Mr. Rajesh Kumar Gautam, Ms. Azal Aekram, Ms. Likivi K Jakhalu, Mr. Mukesh Kumar Jain

Arun Singh @ Arun Kumar, Rohit Singh, Brijesh Kumari

Indian Bank & Anr.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Restoration applications for appeals dismissed as infructuous.

Remedy Sought

Revival and restoration of appeals.

Filing Reason

Failure to comply with the terms of the One Time Settlement.

Previous Decisions

Appeals were dismissed on 16.10.2025 due to the settlement between the parties.

Issues

Whether the restoration applications can be granted despite non-compliance with OTS terms.

Submissions/Arguments

Appellants argued for revival based on failure of settlement; Respondent contended that appellants were at fault for non-compliance.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the liberty to revive appeals was conditional upon the failure of the settlement due to the bank's fault, not the appellants'.

Judgment Excerpts

The appeals were dismissed as infructuous with the liberty that if settlement arrived between the parties fails, the Appellant may revive the appeals. The natural meaning of the phrase used by this Appellate tribunal is crystal clear that in case the OTS or settlement arrived at between the parties fails due to any default on the part of the bank then in that case the applicants/appellants were having liberty to revive the appeals.

Procedural History

The appeals were initially filed challenging the orders of the Ld. Adjudicating Authority under Section 100 of the Code. They were dismissed on 16.10.2025 as infructuous following a settlement. Restoration applications were filed subsequently in 2026.

Acts & Sections

  • Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016: 95, 100, 123
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Dismisses Assessee's Appeal in Income Tax Cash Credit Case — Upholds Addition Under Section 68 Despite Rejection of Books for Gross Profit. Books of Account Can Be Partially Relied Upon for Different Additions Even After Rejection Und...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Upholds Employees' Right to Bonus Under Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 — Clarifies Applicability Despite Authorised Controller Appointment.