National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Disposes Appeal Regarding Resolution Plan and Bank Guarantee Forfeiture. The Tribunal directed the NCLT to resolve issues regarding misrepresentation in the Information Memorandum before further actions in the CIRP.

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

Case Note & Summary

The appeal was filed by Nivaya Resources Private Limited against an order dated 01.09.2026, which involved the forfeiture of a bank guarantee and the approval of a resolution plan under the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) for M/s GPT Steel Industries Ltd. The Appellant claimed to be the Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA) and argued that the Information Memorandum contained incorrect information regarding leasehold rights for certain plots in Gujarat, which misled the resolution plan. The Appellant highlighted that the lease deed executed in 2005 was misrepresented, and the actual possession was under a license agreement rather than a lease. The Appellant sought a stay on the resolution plan's implementation until the status of the assets was clarified. The Respondents contended that there was an ongoing application before the NCLT for further steps in the CIRP process. The Tribunal considered the submissions and referenced a precedent case, deciding that the pending applications should be resolved before any further actions in the CIRP. The Tribunal requested the NCLT to address the issues raised by the parties within two months, allowing the Appellant to seek remedies if the NCLT agreed with their submissions. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.

Headnote

A) Corporate Law - Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process - Misrepresentation in Information Memorandum - Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, 2016, Section Not mentioned - The Appellant contended that the resolution plan was based on incorrect information regarding leasehold rights, which warranted a stay on the implementation of the plan. The Tribunal directed that the issues raised be decided afresh by the NCLT before further steps in the CIRP process are taken, ensuring all rights and contentions are preserved. Held that the NCLT should resolve the issues within two months (Paras 12-13).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the forfeiture of the bank guarantee was justified given the alleged misrepresentation in the Information Memorandum.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Tribunal disposed of the appeal, directing the NCLT to decide the issues raised by the parties afresh prior to the decision in I.A No. 157 of 2026, preferably within two months.

Law Points

  • Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process
  • Misrepresentation
  • Bank Guarantee Forfeiture
  • Leasehold Rights
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2026 LawText (NCLAT) (09) 132

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1819 of 2026

2026-09-23

Justice Yogesh Khanna, Barun Mitra, Ajai Das Mehrotra

Mr. Virender Ganda, Mr. Raghav Kakkar, Mr. Shivpartap Singh, Mr. Pulkit, Mr. Asem, Mr. Tishampati Sen, Ms. Riddhi Sancheti, Mr. Anurag Anand, Mr. Mukul Kulhari, Ms. Manya Jarhervani

Nivaya Resources Private Limited

Divyesh Desai & Anr.

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

Nature of Litigation

Appeal against an order related to the forfeiture of a bank guarantee and approval of a resolution plan.

Remedy Sought

The Appellant sought a stay on the implementation of the resolution plan and a decision on pending applications.

Filing Reason

The Appellant claimed misrepresentation in the Information Memorandum regarding leasehold rights.

Previous Decisions

An order was passed to forfeit the bank guarantee and approve the resolution plan based on the Information Memorandum.

Issues

Whether the forfeiture of the bank guarantee was justified. Whether the resolution plan should be stayed due to misrepresentation.

Submissions/Arguments

The Appellant argued that the resolution plan was based on incorrect information. The Respondents contended that there were pending applications for further steps in the CIRP.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal emphasized the need for clarity on the status of assets and the importance of accurate information in the resolution process.

Judgment Excerpts

This appeal is filed against an impugned order dated 01.09.2026 the plan needs to go and hence his I.A No. 1367 of 2026 be decided at the earliest the applications i.e I.A No. 1367 of 2026 and 1543 of 2025 be decided first prior to issuance of further directions in the CIRP.

Procedural History

The appeal was filed against an order of the NCLT regarding the forfeiture of a bank guarantee and approval of a resolution plan, with subsequent applications pending before the NCLT.

Acts & Sections

  • Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, 2016:
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka Dismisses Refund Claim of CENVAT Credit as Time-Barred Under Section 27 of Customs Act, 1962 — Limitation Period Starts from Date of Payment of Duty, Not from Date of Final Assessment.
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Upholds Maintenance Rights of Divorced Muslim Women Under Criminal Procedure Code