National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Directs Expeditious Disposal of Insolvency Applications — Emphasizes Timely Resolution. The Tribunal mandated the Adjudicating Authority to decide applications under Section 12A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 within thirty days, following the parties' amicable settlement.

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

Case Note & Summary

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal addressed two connected appeals concerning insolvency proceedings involving HDFC Bank Ltd. and Sasmita Rani Samanta, the suspended director of Sustainable Outreach and Universal Leadership (SOUL) Ltd. Both appeals arose from an order dated 21.08.2026, which allowed Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology (KIIT) to intervene as an operational creditor in the ongoing insolvency proceedings. The Appellant in the first appeal, HDFC Bank, sought directions for the timely disposal of its application under Section 12A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, following a settlement with the Corporate Debtor. The second Appellant, Sasmita Rani Samanta, raised similar concerns regarding delays caused by the intervention of KIIT, which had filed a claim against the Corporate Debtor. The Tribunal noted that the operational creditor's claim had been partially admitted, thus justifying its intervention. The Tribunal highlighted the recent amendment to Section 12A, mandating the Adjudicating Authority to decide applications within thirty days, and emphasized the importance of facilitating amicable settlements. The Tribunal directed the Adjudicating Authority to expedite the proceedings and set a timeline for the exchange of pleadings and decision-making, while also clarifying that no adjournments would be entertained during this process. The Tribunal's decision aimed to ensure that the insolvency proceedings progressed without unnecessary delays, respecting the parties' settlements while adhering to legal provisions.

Headnote

A) Insolvency Law - Section 12A Application - Timely Disposal - Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 12A - The Appellants expressed grievances regarding the delay in the disposal of the application under Section 12A despite an amicable settlement. The Tribunal directed the Adjudicating Authority to decide the application within thirty days, emphasizing the need for expediency in such matters (Paras 11-13).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the Adjudicating Authority should expedite the disposal of applications under Section 12A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Tribunal directed the Adjudicating Authority to decide the application under Section 12A within thirty days, emphasizing the need for expediency and cooperation from the operational creditor. The interim order was to remain in effect until the application was disposed of, and no adjournments were to be granted during the proceedings.

Law Points

  • Insolvency proceedings
  • Section 12A application
  • intervention by operational creditor
  • timely disposal of applications
  • amicable settlement facilitation
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2026 LawText (NCLAT) (09) 202

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1716 & 1717 of 2026

2026-09-10

Justice Mohammad Faiz Alam Khan, Naresh Salecha

Mr. Sumesh Dhawan, Mr. Asav Rajan, Ms. Tannya Barnwal, Ms. Kashish Chadha, Mr. Devang Shrotriya, Mr. Aditya Shah, Mr. Pranay Duggal, Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Mr. Dhananjaya Mishra, Mr. Navneet Dogra, Mr. Ayan Rai, Mr. Ritesh Patnaik, Ms. Mallika Ahluwalia

HDFC Bank Ltd., Sasmita Rani Samanta

Sustainable Outreach and Universal Leadership (SOUL) Ltd., Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology

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

Nature of Litigation

Insolvency appeals concerning the intervention of an operational creditor.

Remedy Sought

HDFC Bank Ltd. and Sasmita Rani Samanta sought directions for the timely disposal of their applications under Section 12A.

Filing Reason

The appeals were filed due to delays in the proceedings following an amicable settlement.

Previous Decisions

An order allowing the intervention of KIIT as an operational creditor was previously made.

Issues

Whether the Adjudicating Authority should expedite the disposal of applications under Section 12A. The validity of the intervention by the operational creditor in the ongoing insolvency proceedings.

Submissions/Arguments

HDFC Bank argued for timely disposal of the application under Section 12A due to an amicable settlement. Sasmita Rani Samanta contended that the intervention by KIIT would further delay the proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal emphasized the importance of timely disposal of applications under Section 12A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, particularly in light of recent amendments aimed at expediting insolvency proceedings.

Judgment Excerpts

The Appellants expressed grievances regarding the delay in the disposal of the application under Section 12A despite an amicable settlement. The Tribunal directed the Adjudicating Authority to decide the application within thirty days.

Procedural History

The appeals were filed against the order dated 21.08.2026 allowing the intervention of KIIT in the insolvency proceedings. The Tribunal noted previous orders and the settlement between the parties.

Acts & Sections

  • Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016: Section 12A
  • CIRP Regulations, 2016: Regulation 30A
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Grants Bail to Sub-Divisional Officer in PMLA Case Alleging Illegal NA Permission in CRZ Area. The court held that the applicant satisfied the twin conditions under Section 45 of PMLA and was entitled to bail under Section 439 CrPC.
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal in Rent Control Act Case — Tenant's Claim of Part Performance Rejected. The court found that the appellant's tenancy status remained unchanged and the plea of part performance was not available due to the dismissal of...