NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Upholds Appellant in Insolvency Proceedings — Stay Granted on Impugned Order. Citing the Appellant's commitment to deposit the disputed amount and not seek adjournments, the Tribunal stayed the operation of the Impugned Order under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Tribunals: National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Bench: NEW DELHI
  • 3
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The matter involved an appeal filed by the Appellant, Pulkit Sharma, challenging an Impugned Order passed under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, which initiated insolvency proceedings against Daulat Ram Engineering Services Private Limited, the Corporate Debtor. The Appellant contended that the Corporate Debtor was financially solvent, with assets exceeding 400 Crores, an annual turnover of about Rs. 250 Crores, and a net profit of Rs. 20 Crores as of 31.03.2025. The amount of default leading to the insolvency initiation was Rs. 4,53,48,428 (USD 522,170). The Appellant argued that the insolvency process was causing financial distress and damaging their reputation, and expressed willingness to deposit the entire amount in question with the Tribunal. The Respondent's counsel raised concerns about potential misuse of any interim order granted to the Appellant. After considering the submissions, the Tribunal decided to stay the operation of the Impugned Order until the next date of listing, emphasizing the Appellant's commitment to deposit the amount and not seek adjournments. The Tribunal ordered the Appellant to deposit the demand draft by 17.08.2026 and allowed the Respondent to file a reply by the same date, with the appeal scheduled for final hearing on 19.08.2026.

Headnote

A) Insolvency Law - Stay of Impugned Order - Operation of the Impugned Order stayed - Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 9 - The Appellant demonstrated readiness to deposit the entire amount in question and assured no adjournment for the final hearing, leading the Tribunal to stay the operation of the Impugned Order until the next listing. Held that the stay was necessary to protect the Appellant's interests (Paras 8-9).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the operation of the Impugned Order initiating insolvency proceedings against the Corporate Debtor should be stayed pending appeal.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Tribunal stayed the operation of the Impugned Order dated 31.07.2026 until the next date of listing, requiring the Appellant to deposit the amount by 17.08.2026.

Law Points

  • Insolvency process
  • Interim injunction
  • Corporate Debtor
  • Financial distress
  • Goodwill protection
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2026 LawText (NCLAT) (08) 106

I.A. No. 5648 of 2026 in Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1425 of 2026

2026-08-13

Mohammad Faiz Alam Khan, Naresh Salecha

Krishnendu Datta, Preetpal Singh, Simran Kumari, Pooja, Nikhil Palli, Vijayesh Atre, Aarya Changani

Pulkit Sharma

Hangzhou Sword Elevator Co. Ltd.

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

Nature of Litigation

Appeal against the initiation of insolvency proceedings.

Remedy Sought

Appellant seeks to stay the Impugned Order initiating insolvency.

Filing Reason

Challenging the initiation of insolvency process under Section 9.

Issues

Whether the operation of the Impugned Order should be stayed pending appeal.

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant argued financial distress and readiness to deposit the amount. Respondent expressed concerns about potential misuse of interim orders.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal emphasized the necessity of protecting the Appellant's interests by staying the Impugned Order, given the Appellant's commitment to deposit the disputed amount and not seek adjournments.

Judgment Excerpts

The Appellant is having a very good case on merits. The operation of the Impugned Order may be stayed till the next date of listing.

Procedural History

The appeal was filed challenging the Impugned Order under Section 9, with an interim application for stay. The Tribunal heard the Appellant and Respondent's counsel and decided to stay the order pending further proceedings.

Acts & Sections

  • Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code: Section 9
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Revision Against Copyright Infringement Prosecution — Registration of Copyright Not Mandatory for Criminal Action Under Copyright Act, 1957. Court holds that prior registration under Section 44 is not a prerequisite for ...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court Order on Caste Certificate Invalidity. The Court ruled that the respondent was not entitled to protection of service based on an invalidated caste certificate.