NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH COURT II Item No. 126 IA 3714/2024 IA 3744/2024 IA 200/2024 IA 5661/2023 IA 4444/2024 IA 4999/2023 IA 1029/2024 IA 5630/2023 IA 5631/2023 IA 346/2024 In C.P. (IB)/959(MB)2022 CORAM SHRI SANJIV DUTT SHRI ASHISH KALIA HON’BLE MEMBER (TECHNICAL) HON’BLE MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

ORDER SHEET OF HEARING (HYBRID) DATED 08.01.2026 NAME OF THE PARTIES: Bank of India Vs.

Future Lifestyle Fashions Limited Appearance:

For Applicant/RP: Adv. Nandita Bajpai For Respondent : Adv. Aditi Bhat a/w Adv. Jinay Jain in IA 200/2024 : CS Shweta Tulsani in IA 5631/2023 (VC)

: CS Pooja Wani in IA 5631/2023 (VC)

: Adv. Abhishek Samant i/b SSARVI Legal a/w Adv. Charles Dsouza (VC)

: Adv. Manoj Kumar Saboo (VC)

IBC Under Section 7, Rule 11 of NCLT, 2016, 60(5), 60(5) Rule 11 of NCLT, 2016, 60(5)/Rule 11 Rule 11 of NCLT, 2016, 60(5), 60(5), 60(5), 60(5)

ORDER

IA 3714/2024 IA 3744/2024 Ld. Counsel for the RP submits that her argument Counsel is not available today. Re-list these IAs for arguments on 13.03.2026.

IA 200/2024 Ld. Counsel for the Applicant/RP seeks time to file reply. Time granted. Let the reply be filed by the next date of hearing. Rejoinder, if any, be filed.

Re-list this matter on 13.03.2026.

IA 5661/2023

1. The present Application is filed by the Applicant/Benetton India Pvt. Ltd.

seeking following prayer:

“a. Allow the present Application accordingly direct the Interim Resolutio Professional/Resolution Professional to release/return inventory of the Applicant as provided in Exhibit-F.

b. Pass any other order which this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit.”

2. This matter was heard for some time. Ld. Counsel for the Applicant submits that on the date of taking over possession by RP, the goods were subject to sale or return basis under which the Applicant had right to sell its goods Apparels, Accessories and Footwear under its brand name ‘United Colors of Benetton’ or any other brand. The Applicant herein has already filed a claim before the RP to the tune of Rs.6.9 Cr., which is admitted and the Applicant would get this money as per the distribution ordered by this Tribunal.

3. Ld. Counsel for the RP has drawn our attention to the order passed by the Appellate forum. This Tribunal has already dealt with similar issue in CP(IB) No.959(MB)/2022, in para no. (iii) and (iv), which read as under:

“iii. In respect of goods supplied by the Applicant which have been sold or will be sold by the Corporate Debtor after the insolvency commencement date upto the completion of CIRP period, the Respondent shall be liable to pay to the Applicant the sale price/margin as per the terms agreed upon between the parties;

iv. Needless to state that after expiry of the CIRP period, when the moratorium u/s 14 is lifted, in case the unsold goods are not returned the Applicant shall be at liberty to claim back the same from the Corporate Debtor in accordance with law.”

4. Ld. Counsel for the RP in this matter submits that the Hon’ble NCLAT has observed in para nos.13 & 14 as under:

“13. We have heard Counsel for the parties and after examining the available record, are of the considered opinion that there are two error in this order, firstly, the Tribunal, after having dismissed the application I.A No. 3630 of 2023, could not have issued further direction in the matter which were not even prayed for. Secondly, Respondent has referred to the subsequent events i.e. the events which had taken place after on 28.08.2024 when the impugned order was passed. The case has to be examined on the date when the impugned order was passed and at that time it is apparent that Respondent's claim of Rs. 8,10,03,206/- was admitted by the RP/Appellant which included the value of unsold pieces of cloths i.e. 11,696 amounting to Rs. 2,64,97,821/- but at the same time, the Tribunal has directed that RP should return the same pieces of the cloths i.e. 11,696 to Respondent which is not justified at all.

14. Thus, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we find merit in the