1. Appeal against order affirming directions to handover property to a successful resolution applicant in insolvency proceedings. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 1002
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.V. VISWANATHAN, NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH, JJ.
Nazru S. Basheer – Appellant
Versus
Pancard Clubs Ltd. (Through Its Successful Resolution Applicant, Chemhub Tradelink Pvt. Ltd.) & Anr. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 7441 of 2025
Decided On : 23-06-2025
Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Asav Rajan, Adv. Mr. Kashish Chadha, Adv. Mr. Devang Shrotriya, Adv. Mr. Ravi Sehgal, Adv. Ms. Roopali Lakhotia, AOR.
For the Respondent: Mr. Navin Pahwa, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Manu Krishnan, Adv. Mr. Shivam Shukla, Adv. Mr. Daksh Arora, Adv. Mr. E. C. Agrawala, AOR.
For the Appellant : Mr. Asav Rajan, Adv. Mr. Kashish Chadha, Adv. Mr. Devang Shrotriya, Adv. Mr. Ravi Sehgal, Adv. Ms. Roopali Lakhotia, AOR.
For the Respondent: Mr. Navin Pahwa, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Manu Krishnan, Adv. Mr. Shivam Shukla, Adv. Mr. Daksh Arora, Adv. Mr. E. C. Agrawala, AOR.
The court upheld the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal's order, emphasizing non-interference unless a substantial legal error or injustice is evident.
Headnote:(A) Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Appeal against judgment of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, dated 30.05.2025, relating to successful resolution applicant - Appeal disposed of granting one week’s time to the appellant to handover property as directed by the Tribunal. (Paras 1-5)
(B) Procedure under Insolvency Laws - The court is not inclined to interfere with orders of the appellate tribunal unless there is a clear question of law or an evident injustice. (Paras 1-5)
Facts of the case:
The appeal involved a challenge to an order of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal concerning the transfer of property to the resolution applicant.
Findings of Court:
The court allowed one week’s time for compliance with the tribunal’s order, reinforcing the need for adherence to procedural timelines in insolvency matters.
Issues: The key issue was the compliance with the adjudicating authority's order in the context of insolvency resolution.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that it would not interfere in matters adjudicated by the appellate tribunal unless there is substantial legal error or injustice involved.
Result: Appeal disposed of, granting a week’s time for compliance.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Request for extension of time to comply with directions for handover of property to a successful resolution applicant. (Para 2 , 3 )
3. No grounds found to interfere with the appellate tribunal's order affirming the adjudicating authority's directions. (Para 1 , 4 )
4. Court may grant a reasonable extension of time for compliance with an order affirmed by an appellate tribunal. (Para 4 )
5. Appeal disposed of with a one-week extension granted to comply with the order of the adjudicating authority. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 )
6. Can a court grant an extension of time to comply with an order affirmed by an appellate tribunal in insolvency proceedings?
Yes, the court may grant a specific timeframe for compliance with the directions of the adjudicating authority as affirmed by the appellate tribunal upon request and consent of the parties. (Para 4 )
ORDER :
1. We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order dated 30.05.2025 passed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 798 of 2025.
2. At this stage, Mr. Asav Rajan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant states that he needs a week’s time to handover the property to the successful resolution applicant, i.e. the respondent no.1 herein.
3. Mr. Navin Pahwa, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents has no objection if one week’s time, as prayed, is granted.
4. A week’s time is granted to the appellant to comply with the order of the adjudicating authority, as affirmed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal.
5. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
6. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
