2026 Supreme(Online)(NCLT) 957
ALLAHABAD BENCH, PRAYAGRAJ
(An application under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 R/w Rule 11 of NCLT Rules, 2016)
IN THE MATTER OF:
SOUTH WEST MINING LIMITED .............Applicant
Versus
MR. BHUVAN MADAN (RESOLUTION PROFESSIONAL)
For Jaiprakash Associates Limited
Having Address At:
A-103 Ashok Vihar Phase-3 (Behind Laxmi Bai College)
New Delhi, National Capital Territory of Delhi, 110052 .............Respondent
AND IN THE MATTER OF:
ICICI BANK LIMITED …………Financial Creditor
Versus
JAIPRAKASH ASSOCIATES LIMITED …………Corporate Debtor
Order pronounced on 17.03.2026
Coram:
Mr. Praveen Gupta. : Member (Judicial)
Mr. Ashish Verma : Member (Technical)
Appearances:
Sh. Spandan Biswal with Sh. Shivendra Pandey & Sh. Pranay Kumar, Advs. : For the Applicant
Sh. Anoop Rawat with Sh. Sagar Dhawan, Sh. Vaijayant Paliwal, Sh. Aditya Marwah, Sh. Nikhil Mathur, Sh. Ahkam Khan, Sh. Udbhav Nanda, Ms. Kirti Gupta, Ms. Varnika Taya, Ms. Rashi Sharma, Ms. Diksha Sharma, Ms. Ananya Khanna, Ms. Aditi Rathore, Ms. Shreya Gupta & Ms. Gunjan Jadwani, Advs. : For the Res./ RP
-Sd- -Sd-
(Ashish Verma) (Praveen Gupta)
Member (Technical) Member (Judicial)
Date: 17.03.2026
For the Petitioner:Shivendra Pandey
For the Respondent:Gunjan Jadwani
ORDER
1. The instant Application has been filed on 09.04.2025 by South West Mining Limited, (hereinafter referred to as “Applicant”) against the M/s Jaiprakash Associates Limited, i.e., Corporate Debtor (hereinafter referred to as “Respondent”), under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred as “the Code”) read with Rule 11 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016 seeking inter alia the following prayers:
i. Take into consideration overall facts of the case, this Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to admit the current Interlocutory Application and condone the delay in filing the claim before the Resolution Professional.
ii. This Hon’ble Adjudicating Authority be pleased to direct the Resolution Professional to admit the claim dated October 29, 2024 submitted by the Applicant.
iii. In the alternative to prayer ii., this Hon’ble Adjudicating Authority be pleased to direct the Resolution Professional to consider and verify the Applicant’s claim and decide accordingly; and
iv. Any other relief(s) that this Ld. Adjudicating Authority deems fit.
2. The Applicant, herein, submits that an Agreement to Sell dated 21.10.2022 was executed between the Applicant, the Corporate Debtor and Jaypee Infra Ventures Private Limited, in respect of the purchase of land bearing Khasra No. 116, situated at Village Kaun Khera, Agra. The total sale consideration for the said transaction was agreed at Rs. 17,81,64,000/-, out of which the Applicant had advanced a sum of Rs. 6,00,00,000/- to the Corporate Debtor. It is further submitted that the said Agreement to Sell was subsequently amended on 18.10.2023, whereby the tenure of the agreement was extended to a period of two years or until the date of registration of the sale deed, whichever occurred earlier. As per the terms of the agreement, it was also stipulated that the amount advanced by the Applicant would be refundable upon expiry of the term of the agreement along with interest at the rate of 10% per annum.
3. Pursuant to the order of this Tribunal dated 03.06.2024, the Corporate Debtor was admitted into the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP), and Mr. Bhuvan Madan was appointed as a Resolution Professional (RP). Thereafter, the RP made a public announcement on 06.06.2024, inviting submission of claims from all creditors of the Corporate Debtor on or before 17.06.2024. In response thereto, the Applicant submitted its claim in Form C dated 29.10.2024 for an amount of Rs. 6,37,21,311/-, along with the relevant supporting documents.
4. The Applicant further submits that the existence of the debt is also substantiated from the accounts of the Corporate Debtor as on 31.03.2023. It is contended that the Applicant, being a property purchaser who had made an advance payment towards the proposed transaction, is to be treated as a Financial Creditor, and the amount so advanced is to be regarded as a borrowing by the Corporate Debtor. In support of this contention, reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble NCLAT, Chennai Bench dated 04.09.2023 in the matter of Yenkat Rao Marpina vs. Vemuri Ravi Kumar & Anr., Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins.) No. 134 of 2022.
5. The Applicant also avers that the delay of 134 days in filing the claim before the RP was neither deliberate nor intentional and occurred due to the failure on the part of the RP in the discharge of his duties as detailed under Regulation 13 of the CIRP Regulations. Upon submission of the claim, the Applicant made repeated requests to the RP to consider the claim. However, to date, the Applicant has received no response from RP in respect to its claim dated 29.10.2024. Meanwhile, the RP has continued to admit belated claims even after the filing of the Applicant’s claim, which is evident from the updated lists of claims published on 10.12.2024, 10.01.2025 and 20.02.2025.
6. The Applicant has also placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble NCLAT in Puneet Ka