NCLT Directs Indian Bank Officer to Appear, Rejects 60-Page Affidavit as Beyond Scope in Nimitiya Hotel CIRP

April 15, 2026 : The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), New Delhi, has refused to take on record a 60-page affidavit filed by Indian Bank in proceedings arising out of the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) of M/s Nimitiya Hotel and Resorts Limited, holding that the filing exceeded the limited scope of clarification earlier directed by the Bench.

The order was passed by a Bench comprising Justice Jyotsna Sharma (Judicial Member) and Ms. Reena Sinha Puri (Technical Member) on 15 April 2026.

The issue arose from two applications (IA/1222/2026 and IA/5980/2025) filed by the bank seeking substantially similar reliefs, along with inconsistent submissions during hearings. The Tribunal had earlier directed the bank to file a short affidavit clarifying which application it intended to pursue and which one it would withdraw.

However, instead of a limited clarification, the bank filed an extensive affidavit dated 31 March 2026. The Resolution Professional (RP) objected at the outset, arguing that the affidavit introduced fresh facts, emails, and allegations not forming part of the original pleadings and was beyond the Tribunal’s direction.

Accepting the objection, the Bench observed that the affidavit contained “many facts which are beyond the scope of the direction” and noted a clear attempt to introduce new material not part of the original record. The Tribunal emphasized that such conduct undermines the sanctity of judicial directions, particularly in time-bound proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

The Tribunal held that the affidavit, filed “in the name of compliance,” did not appear to be bona fide and directed that it shall not be treated as part of the record. It further cautioned that permitting such filings or parallel proceedings would disrupt the smooth conduct of CIRP.

Granting a final opportunity, the Bench allowed Indian Bank to file a fresh affidavit strictly confined to the earlier direction within two weeks, warning that continued non-compliance may attract heavy costs and further orders.

The Tribunal also recorded its disapproval of the conduct of Senior Advocate Sanjeev Sen, appearing for the bank. It noted that after pronouncement of the order, counsel attempted to re-argue the matter and questioned the adequacy of compliance. The Bench observed that the “tone and tenor” of the submissions was not dignified or acceptable.

Taking a serious view of the overall conduct, the Tribunal directed that a senior officer of Indian Bank, well-versed with the matter, must appear physically before the Bench to explain the circumstances leading to such filings.

The matter is now listed for further hearing on 20 May 2026.

Cause Title: Indian Bank v. M/s Nimitiya Hotel and Resorts Limited
Case No.: (IB)-1913(ND)2019 along with IA/1222/2026 & IA/5980/2025 (and connected IAs)
Coram: Justice Jyotsna Sharma (Judicial Member) and Ms. Reena Sinha Puri (Technical Member)