The Delhi bench of National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has held that adjudicating authority cannot expand its jurisdiction and intervene where Committee Of Creditors (CoC) is tasked to make decisions at its own discretion.
The bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Barun Mitra (Technical Member) has observed that there is no provision of law empowering the Adjudicating Authority to grant approval of delay condonation in furnishing the performance bank guarantee/unconditional bank guarantee by the SRA. The Adjudicating Authority cannot expand its jurisdiction and step in where CoC has to take the decision in their own discretion.
The Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA) had approached the Adjudicating Authority requesting condonation of 43 days’ delay in furnishing a Performance Bank Guarantee of ₹1.54 crore, and 42 days’ delay in submitting an Unconditional Financial Bank Guarantee of ₹1.5 crore.
The application also sought any other reliefs deemed appropriate by the Authority.
However, the Adjudicating Authority refused to grant relief, noting that the Committee of Creditors (CoC) had held its meeting as far back as 18 December 2019, whereas the SRA filed the application nearly six years later. The order observed that there is no statutory provision empowering the Authority to condone such delays, and that the discretion in these matters lies squarely with the CoC.
While agreeing with the Adjudicating Authority’s view that it cannot expand its jurisdiction or interfere with the CoC’s exclusive powers, the Tribunal held that the application should have been disposed of with those observations alone, rather than being dismissed on merits.
The Appellate Bench noted submissions made by counsel for the appellant, who argued that the CoC had in fact condoned the delay, though the same was being disputed by the respondent.
The Tribunal deleted paragraph 7 of the impugned order, thereby modifying the Adjudicating Authority’s decision. It clarified that I.A. No. 3174 of 2025 shall stand disposed of in line with its directions, rather than treated as dismissed.
Case Details
Case Title: Mehar Bhoomi Bhawan Pvt Ltd. Versus Shashi Bhushan Prasad
Case No.: Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1312 of 2025 & I.A. No. 5125 of 2025
Date: 26.09.2025
Counsel For Petitioner: Krishnendu Datta, Sr. Advocate
Counsel For Respondent: Arvind Nayar, Mr. Aslam Ahmed, Ms. Kheyali Singh and Ms. Diksha Dadu
Read More: Himachal Pradesh Raises Cement Prices by ₹5 per Bag Amid GST Revenue Losses
