NCLT Delhi Directs Indian Bank Senior Officer To Appear In Nimitiya Hotel CIRP Over RP Replacement Dispute

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Delhi has recently directed a senior officer of Indian Bank to appear in person after finding that the bank filed a 60 page affidavit far beyond a limited clarification it had sought in a dispute over replacing the resolution professional of Nimitiya Hotel and Resorts Limited.

A bench of Judicial Member Justice Jyotsna Sharma and Technical Member Reena Sinha Puri said, “The affidavit contains many facts which are beyond the scope of the direction given by this bench. We have no hesitation in observing that there is clearly an attempt to import facts and circumstances in the matter, which were probably not in the original pleadings filed by the Applicant."

The tribunal also recorded its disapproval of the conduct of Senior Advocate Sanjeev Sen, appearing for Indian Bank, after it pronounced its order declining to take the affidavit on record and directing the filing of a fresh, limited affidavit, observing,

“We observe that the tone and tenor of the counsel was not dignified and acceptable" when he questioned whether the affidavit amounted to sufficient compliance.

The dispute arises from the bank's attempt to replace the insolvency professional handling the company's resolution process. It had filed two applications seeking largely the same relief. When asked to choose one, the bank shifted its stand during the hearing.

The tribunal noted that pursuing identical reliefs in parallel was against judicial propriety, observing that allowing such a course would “unnecessary hindrance in proceeding smoothly in the matters under IBC, which are a time bound proceeding.”

It then, on March 20, 2026, directed the bank to file a short affidavit clarifying which application it would pursue.

Instead, the bank filed an affidavit dated March 31, 2026 running into about 60 pages. Counsel for the resolution professional objected, arguing that it introduced new facts, emails, and allegations not part of the original pleadings and sought time to respond if it was taken on record.

The tribunal accepted the objection. “To prevent misuse of authority of law and to maintain its sanctity it is hereby directed that the affidavit dated 31.03.2026, shall not be treated by any of the parties as part of the record,” it said.

It added, “The attitude of the Court should not be permissive enough so as to allow the type of liberty applicant is seeking which we have noted in this case.”

It granted the bank two weeks to file a fresh affidavit limited to the clarification sought and warned that continued conduct of this nature would invite heavy costs and further orders. It also directed a senior officer of the bank, well-versed with the matter, to appear before it to explain the conduct recorded in the proceedings on the next date of hearing, which is May 20.