NCLAT Sets Aside Personal Insolvency Resolution Process Due to Settlement. Settlement Reached Between Parties, Leading to Closure of Proceedings Under Section 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Tribunals: National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Bench: NEW DELHI
  • 1
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The case involved an appeal against an order passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) initiating the Personal Insolvency Resolution Process against the appellant, Nirmal Singh, based on an application from IndusInd Bank. The NCLT's order was dated 16/03/2026, following an application filed under Section 95(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). The appellant contended that a report from the Resolution Professional indicated that the debt was in the settlement stage and did not recommend admission of Personal Insolvency. The appellant had also filed an application for settlement, which was acknowledged by the bank. However, an addendum from the Resolution Professional was submitted without the appellant being served, leading to the impugned order. The appellant argued that this violated natural justice principles. Upon appeal, the Tribunal noted that a settlement had been reached, with the bank confirming that all payments were made and no other claims were pending. The Tribunal concluded that the proceedings against the appellant should not continue and set aside the NCLT's order, thereby closing the Personal Insolvency Resolution Process. The appeal was disposed of accordingly, and the pending applications were also resolved.

Headnote

A) Insolvency Law - Personal Insolvency Resolution Process - Violation of Natural Justice - Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 95 - The Tribunal found that the appellant was not given an opportunity to respond to an addendum filed by the Resolution Professional, which violated principles of natural justice. The Tribunal held that the proceedings should be closed as a settlement had been reached between the parties, thus setting aside the impugned order (Paras 5-7).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the impugned order initiating the Personal Insolvency Resolution Process was justified given the settlement between the parties.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order dated 16/03/2026 and closed the Personal Insolvency Resolution Process against the appellant, noting the settlement between the parties.

Law Points

  • Natural justice
  • Personal Insolvency
  • Settlement
  • Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code
  • 2016
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2026 LawText (NCLAT) (08) 4

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 583 of 2026

2026-08-07

Justice Yogesh Khanna, Barun Mitra, Ajai Das Mehrotra

Mr. Arun Kathpalia, Mr. Abhijeet Sinha, Mr. Anupam Lal Das, Mr. Raj Kamal, Mr. Aseem Atwal, Mr. Arush Khanna, Mr. Manish Kumar Sharma, Mr. Somil Jain, Ms. Usha Singh, Mr. Ishwar Pohapatra, Mr. Animesh Pandey

Nirmal Singh

IndusInd Bank Ltd.

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

Nature of Litigation

Appeal against initiation of Personal Insolvency Resolution Process

Remedy Sought

Appellant sought to set aside the NCLT's order initiating insolvency proceedings

Filing Reason

NCLT initiated proceedings based on an application from IndusInd Bank

Previous Decisions

NCLT had previously deferred the Company Petition to allow for settlement

Issues

Whether the impugned order was justified given the settlement Whether principles of natural justice were violated

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant argued that the addendum was not served and violated natural justice Respondent indicated that a settlement had been reached and all payments made

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal emphasized the importance of adhering to principles of natural justice and recognized the finality of a settlement reached between the parties, which negated the need for continued insolvency proceedings.

Judgment Excerpts

The entire payment is made and nothing is left. We see no reason to continue with the proceedings against the appellant.

Procedural History

The NCLT initiated the Personal Insolvency Resolution Process on 16/03/2026, following an application under Section 95 of the IBC. The appellant filed an application for settlement on 29/11/2025, and the NCLT had previously deferred the Company Petition to allow for settlement discussions.

Acts & Sections

  • Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016: Section 95, Section 99
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority for Insolvency Resolution Process for Personal Guarantors to Corporate Debtors) Rules, 2019:
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 ...