1. Appeal against order adjourning hearing of an application concerning the redistribution of claims among secured financial creditors in an insolvency resolution process. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(NCLAT) 1015
NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
Yogesh Khanna, Chairperson, Barun Mitra, J, Ajai Das Mehrotra, J
Siemens Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Prince SWR Systems Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1879 of 2026 | I.A. No. 7120 of 2026
Important Points
The Appellate Tribunal directed the Adjudicating Authority to expeditiously hear and dispose of a pending interlocutory application concerning the distribution of funds among secured creditors, which had previously not been heard due to paucity of time.
Subject
Insolvency and Bankruptcy - Resolution Plan
Headnote
(A) Insolvency and Bankruptcy - Adjudication of Interlocutory Applications - Direction to Adjudicating Authority - Where an application regarding the distribution of funds among secured creditors was not heard due to paucity of time, the Appellate Tribunal may direct the Adjudicating Authority to hear and dispose of the application expeditiously. (Para 4)
Issues: Whether the Adjudicating Authority should be directed to hear and dispose of the pending interlocutory application regarding the distribution of funds.
Issues: Whether the Adjudicating Authority should be directed to hear and dispose of the pending interlocutory application regarding the distribution of funds.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Asav Rajan, Ajay Sharma
For the Respondents:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Asav Rajan, Ajay Sharma
For the Respondents:
Table of Contents
2. Appellants sought a direction to the adjudicating authority to expeditiously decide a pending interfacial application regarding the redistribution of charge-related amounts. (Para 3 )
3. The court observed that previous orders permitted the distribution of funds to abide by the decision of the adjudicating authority on the pending interlocutory application. (Para 2 )
4. Appellate courts may direct the expeditious disposal of pending interlocutory applications that govern the distribution of funds while maintaining the validity of the underlying resolution plan approval. (Para 4 )
5. The appeal is disposed of with directions to the adjudicating authority to hear and decide the pending interlocutory application expeditiously. (Para 4 , 5 )
6. Can an appellate authority order the expeditious disposal of a pending application before the adjudicating authority without interfering with the primary resolution plan?
Yes, where the resolution plan approval is not challenged but the distribution of funds among creditors is subject to a pending adjudication, the appellate authority may direct the tribunal to resolve the distribution dispute expeditiously while preserving the status quo of the approved plan. (Para 2 , 4 )
7. How should funds subject to disputed redistribution be handled pending an adjudication decision?
The resolution professional is required to keep the disputed amount in a separate interest-bearing account, which shall be distributed in accordance with the final determination made by the adjudicating authority. (Para 2 )
O R D E R
(Hybrid Mode)
15.10.2026 : This appeal is filed against an impugned order dated 03.08.2026, passed by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, Court III) in I.A. No. 995 of 2025 in C.P. (IB)4345(MB)/2019, where due to paucity of time, the matter could not be heard.
2. It is the submitted, earlier in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 749/2025 on 20.05.2025, the following order was passed:
“6. Appellant being the Assenting Financial Creditor has approved the plan. The grievance is with regard to distribution of amount amongst the Secured Financial Creditors, which according to the Appellant is engaging attention in IA No.995 of 2025 since his first charge has been reclassified as pari-pasu charge. It is submitted that Appellant has no grievance in so far as approval of the Resolution Plan and his grievance is limited to re-distribution, which is now engaging attention in IA No.995 of 2025. We are of the view that ends of justice be served in disposing the appeal with observation that plan approval order is not interfered with, however, the distribution shall abide by the decision of the Adjudicating Authority in IA No.995 of 2025. The Resolution Professional shall keep an amount of Rs.2,23,84,000/- in a separate interest bearing account, which shall abide by the decision of the Adjudicating Authority in IA No.995 of 2025. With above observations, Appeal is disposed of.”
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant, I.A. No. 995/2025 is listed tomorrow i.e., on 16.10.2026 for hearing and application may be disposed of by giving the directions to the Ld. Adjudicating Authority to hear the said I.A. and to pass an appropriate order.
4. Considering the submissions, the appeal is disposed of by requesting the Ld. Adjudicating Authority to hear I.A. No. 995/2025 listed on 16.10.2026 and to dispose it of as expeditiously as possible.
5. With these observations, the appeal stands disposed of accordingly. Pending applications are also disposed of.
