Case Details

Case Name: Sanjeev Kumar Jain vs Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd & Anr. and Surya Mani Pandey vs Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd & Anr.

Parties: Appellants - Sanjeev Kumar Jain (Suspended Director of Parsvnath Developers Limited) and Surya Mani Pandey (Suspended Director of Noida Marketing Pvt. Ltd.); Respondents - Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd & Anr.

Court/Authority: National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi

Case Numbers: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 900 of 2026 and Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 977 of 2026

Date of Order: 29th May, 2026

Period of Dispute: Loan facilities sanctioned from 26.03.2018 onwards; Date of default mentioned as 05.03.2024

Parties Involved

Petitioners/Appellants: Sanjeev Kumar Jain (Suspended Director of Parsvnath Developers Limited) and Surya Mani Pandey (Suspended Director of Noida Marketing Private Limited)

Respondents: Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd (ARCIL) as financial creditor, Resolution Professional

Key Companies: Parsvnath Developers Limited (principal borrower), Noida Marketing Private Limited (corporate guarantor), Sammaan Capital Limited (original lender)

Legal Representatives: Multiple senior advocates and advocates representing both parties including Mr. Krishnendu Datta, Sr. Advocate for appellants and Mr. Abhijeet Sinha, Sr. Advocate for respondents

Issues / Allegations / Violations

  • Sammaan Capital Limited sanctioned various loan facilities to Parsvnath Developers Limited starting with first loan facility of ₹72 crore on 26.03.2018 and six other subsequent loan facilities
  • Total amount of default claimed under Loan Agreement was ₹942,26,92,456/- (₹942.27 crore) with date of default mentioned as 05.03.2024
  • Breakdown of default amount: Principal amount ₹452,34,19,608/-, Interest Due: ₹26,59,51,243/-, Other Charges: ₹438,32,90,363/-
  • Financial creditor issued notices recalling entire loan facilities on 08.07.2024 and called upon corporate debtor to repay total outstanding amount within three days
  • Noida Marketing Private Limited stood as corporate guarantor to the loan facilities and received demand notices against loan amount on 24.05.2024
  • Multiple proceedings were initiated including Section 7 applications under IBC and Section 9 petitions under Arbitration & Conciliation Act before Delhi High Court

Findings & Observations

  • The NCLAT found that default on part of corporate debtor is well proved from material on record
  • Adjudicating authority (NCLT) had rightly found debt and default proved and admitted Section 7 application
  • Corporate debtor's admission in various proceedings about endeavoring to settle the dispute was clear proof of default
  • The tribunal relied on Supreme Court judgement in 'B. Prashanth Hegde' Vs. 'State Bank of India & Anr.' (Civil Appeal No.477/2022 decided on 12.02.2026) which ruled that set off and counter claim may be considered at stage of filing proof of claims during resolution process by RP
  • The objective of IBC is to resolve insolvency of corporate debtor and maximize value, but settlement attempts failed repeatedly
  • Corporate debtor deposited only ₹25 crore out of promised ₹75 crore to Delhi High Court Registry

Penalties / Settlements / Directions

  • Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) admitted against both Parsvnath Developers Limited and Noida Marketing Private Limited
  • Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) appointed for both corporate debtors
  • Moratorium declared under Section 14 of IBC
  • IRP has received claims worth ₹800 crores from homebuyers following publication
  • No monetary penalties imposed beyond the CIRP admission

Corrective Actions & Future Obligations

  • Corporate debtors are now under CIRP process requiring compliance with all IBC provisions
  • Resolution Professional to manage operations and conduct resolution process
  • Moratorium prevents any legal actions against corporate debtors during CIRP period
  • Homebuyers' claims of ₹800 crores to be processed through resolution mechanism

Final Ruling & Enforcement

  • Both appeals (Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No.900/2026 and Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No.977/2026) dismissed
  • Impugned orders dated 30.04.2026 and 24.04.2026 upheld
  • CIRP process to continue against both corporate debtors as ordered by NCLT
  • No grounds found to interfere with NCLT's admission orders
  • Order pronounced by Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Barun Mitra (Member Technical)