National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Allows Bank's Appeals Against Cost Imposition in Bankruptcy Proceedings. The imposition of costs was found to be unjustified and excessive, violating principles of fairness in legal proceedings.

Tribunals: National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Bench: NEW DELHI
  • 2
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The appeals arose from orders of the Learned Adjudicating Authority concerning the imposition of costs on UCO Bank for non-compliance with previous orders. The bank sought to withdraw its application under Section 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, but was denied this liberty and faced a cost of Rs. 50,000 for non-compliance, which was later increased to Rs. 75,000. The bank argued that it had complied with the necessary regulations regarding the invocation of guarantees and that the costs were unjustified. The court analyzed the procedural history, noting that the bank's request to withdraw its application should have been granted, as it did not cause undue hardship to the respondent. The court emphasized that the imposition of costs should not be routine and should only occur in exceptional circumstances. Ultimately, the court set aside the orders imposing costs and allowed the bank to withdraw its application, directing the Learned Adjudicating Authority to consider any fresh application filed by the bank. The appeals were allowed, and no costs were ordered against either party.

Headnote

A) Bankruptcy Law - Withdrawal of Application - Right to Withdraw - Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 95 - The court held that a petitioner has the right to withdraw their application unless there is a legal defect requiring amendment. The imposition of costs for withdrawal was deemed unnecessary and unjustified. (Paras 14-18)

B) Costs Imposition - Justification for Costs - Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 95 - The court found that the costs imposed by the Learned Adjudicating Authority were excessive and not warranted by the circumstances of the case. The orders imposing costs were set aside. (Paras 18-19)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the imposition and enhancement of costs by the Learned Adjudicating Authority were justified.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The court set aside the orders imposing costs of Rs. 50,000 and Rs. 75,000, allowing the appellant to withdraw its application and file a fresh one within 14 days.

Law Points

  • Withdrawal of application
  • Imposition of costs
  • Invocation of guarantee
  • Compliance with court orders
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2026 LawText (NCLAT) (07) 29

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1179 of 2026 & Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1191 of 2026

2026-07-27

Justice Mohammad Faiz Alam Khan, Naresh Salecha

Mr. Naveen Kumar

UCO Bank

Rupinder Singh

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

Nature of Litigation

Appeals against orders imposing costs for non-compliance with court directives in bankruptcy proceedings.

Remedy Sought

UCO Bank sought to withdraw its application and set aside the imposed costs.

Filing Reason

The bank filed appeals against the imposition and enhancement of costs by the Learned Adjudicating Authority.

Previous Decisions

The Learned Adjudicating Authority had imposed costs for non-compliance with an order to file a letter of invocation.

Issues

Justification of cost imposition Right to withdraw application

Submissions/Arguments

The appellant argued that the costs were unjustified and that they should have been allowed to withdraw their application. The respondent's position was not marked in the proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi

The court emphasized that a petitioner has the right to withdraw their application unless there is a legal defect, and costs should not be imposed routinely without justification.

Judgment Excerpts

The application stands allowed. The cost of Rs. 50,000 has been unnecessarily imposed. Both the appeals are thus allowed.

Procedural History

The appellant filed two appeals against orders of the Learned Adjudicating Authority regarding costs imposed for non-compliance with previous orders. The appeals were heard and decided together.

Acts & Sections

  • Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016: Section 95
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal Against High Court's Decision on Lease Violation. The court found that the lease terms did not prohibit non-residential use of the property, thus upholding the High Court's ruling.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Writ Petition for Regularisation of Contractual Employees in District Child Protection Units Under Integrated Child Protection Scheme — Violation of Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution. Petitioners appointed on contract basi...