National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Modifies Cost Imposition on Appellant in Liquidation Matter. The Tribunal allowed the appellant to deposit the amount with the Liquidator while preserving its right to contest the refund application, thus waiving the imposed cost if deposited timely.

Tribunals: National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Bench: New Delhi
  • 1
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The appeal was filed against an order dated 08.07.2026 by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Cuttack, which imposed a cost of Rs. 2 lakhs on Axis Bank Ltd. for failing to refund an amount received from the Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA) and for not appearing or filing a reply to I.A No. 296 of 2022. The initial resolution plan was approved on 22.01.2019, but the SRA defaulted on payments, leading to a liquidation order on 09.03.2022, which directed the forfeiture of amounts paid to the appellant. The appellant contended that there was no explicit direction to refund the amount and agreed to deposit it with the Liquidator to avoid controversy, while maintaining the right to contest the refund application. The Tribunal modified the NCLT's order, stating that if the appellant deposited the amount within three weeks, the cost would be waived. The appeal was disposed of, and the pending application was allowed to be contested without influence from this order.

Headnote

A) Company Law - Liquidation Proceedings - Refund Obligations - Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - The appellant was directed to refund an amount received from the SRA but contested the obligation to do so. The court modified the order, allowing the appellant to deposit the amount with the Liquidator while preserving its right to contest the refund application, thus waiving the imposed cost if deposited timely. Held that the appellant's voluntary deposit would mitigate the cost imposed (Paras 4-5).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the appellant was obligated to refund the amount received from the SRA and the validity of the cost imposed by the NCLT.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Tribunal modified the NCLT's order, allowing the appellant to deposit the amount with the Liquidator within three weeks, waiving the imposed cost if deposited timely. The appeal was disposed of, and the pending application was allowed to be contested without influence from this order.

Law Points

  • Liquidation proceedings
  • cost imposition
  • refund obligations
  • voluntary deposit
  • modification of orders
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2026 LawText (NCLAT) (09) 71

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1566 of 2026 & I.A. No. 6003 of 2026

2026-09-03

Justice Yogesh Khanna, Barun Mitra, Ajai Das Mehrotra

Mr. K. Datta, Mr. Anshuman Gupta, Mr. Karan Aggarwal, Mr. Yash Tandon, Adv. Udita Singh

Axis Bank Ltd.

BSR Diagnostic Ltd. & Ors.

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

Nature of Litigation

Appeal against cost imposition in liquidation proceedings

Remedy Sought

Modification of the cost imposed and clarification on refund obligations

Filing Reason

Imposition of cost for non-refund and non-appearance

Previous Decisions

Initial resolution plan approved, liquidation ordered, cost imposed by NCLT

Issues

Obligation to refund amount received from SRA Validity of cost imposed by NCLT

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant argued no direction for refund existed Appellant agreed to deposit amount to avoid controversy

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that voluntary compliance with the deposit would mitigate the cost imposed, allowing the appellant to contest the refund application without prejudice.

Judgment Excerpts

This appeal is filed against an impugned order dated 08.07.2026 the Ld. NCLT observed that since the Appellant had failed to repay / refund the amount the cost as imposed upon the Appellant shall stand waived

Procedural History

The appeal was filed against the NCLT's order imposing costs for non-compliance with refund obligations and non-appearance in proceedings.

Acts & Sections

  • Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code:
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Appeal Against Section 9 Order for Handing Over Flats for Redevelopment — Holds That Disputed Possession Cannot Be Directed Without Final Determination of Rights in Arbitration. The court set aside the order directing posse...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Appeal Against Rejection of Temporary Injunction in Specific Performance Suit — Prima Facie Case Established for Agreement for Sale. The court held that the Trial Court's order was perverse and that the plaintiffs had made ...