NCLAT Disposes Company Appeal Following Settlement Under IBC — Appeal resolved as parties reached a settlement under Section 12A.

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

Case Note & Summary

The Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 207/2025 was filed by Anuj Nautiyal against an order dated 07.04.2025 from the NCLT, Bengaluru Bench, which admitted applications under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) against the Corporate Debtor, Embassy Services Pvt. Ltd. The appeal was initially granted an interim order on 21.04.2025, which continued until the parties filed an application under Section 12A of the IBC to settle their dispute. Due to the interim order creating an impediment for the Section 12A application, the NCLT was allowed to proceed with the matter uninfluenced by the interim order. On 06.04.2026, the NCLT confirmed that the Section 12A proceedings had attained finality, and the parties had resolved their dispute. Consequently, the Company Appeal was disposed of in accordance with the settlement reached under Section 12A, as per the NCLT's order. The members of the tribunal included Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma and Jatindranath Swain.

Headnote

A) Insolvency Law - Interim Orders - Effect of Interim Orders on Settlement Proceedings - Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 12A - The court clarified that the interim order should not impede the proceedings under Section 12A, allowing the NCLT to decide the matter uninfluenced by the interim order. The appeal was disposed of as the parties reached a settlement, confirming the finality of the NCLT's decision on the matter (Paras 1-2).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the Company Appeal should be disposed of following the settlement under Section 12A of the IBC.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Company Appeal was disposed of in terms of the settlement reached under Section 12A of the IBC, following the NCLT's order on 06.04.2026.

Law Points

  • Interim order
  • Section 12A
  • IBC
  • 2016
  • NCLT jurisdiction
  • settlement of disputes
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2026 LawText (NCLAT) (06) 23

Comp App (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 207/2025

2026-06-11

Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma, Jatindranath Swain

Mr. Dev Aaryan, Mr. Amritha Jayaprakash

Anuj Nautiyal

Embassy Services Pvt. Ltd.

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

Nature of Litigation

Company Appeal against NCLT order admitting insolvency applications.

Remedy Sought

Appellant sought to challenge the NCLT's order admitting applications under IBC.

Filing Reason

The appeal was filed due to dissatisfaction with the NCLT's order dated 07.04.2025.

Previous Decisions

The NCLT had admitted applications under Section 7 of the IBC against the Corporate Debtor.

Issues

Whether the interim order affected the Section 12A proceedings Whether the appeal should be disposed of following the settlement

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant argued for the appeal based on the interim order's implications Respondents indicated that the matter was settled under Section 12A

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that interim orders should not obstruct settlement proceedings under Section 12A of the IBC, allowing the NCLT to decide the matter independently.

Judgment Excerpts

The Company Appeal would stand disposed of in terms of the settlement arrived at under Section 12A of the code. The continuance of the interim order of 21.04.2025 was creating an impediment in proceeding with Section 12A application.

Procedural History

The appeal was filed against the NCLT's order dated 07.04.2025, interim order granted on 21.04.2025, clarification on 24.03.2026, and final decision on 06.04.2026.

Acts & Sections

  • Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016: Section 7, Section 12A
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows Homebuyers' Appeal and Waives Time Extension Charges Imposed by Development Authority in Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process. Court Holds That Penalty Charges for Project Delay Cannot Be Treated as CIRP Costs or Recovered fro...
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Bombay Hears Section 9 Petition for Interim Measures in Commercial Matter. Arbitration Act, 1996 invoked for pre-arbitral relief in a contractual dispute.