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

Order Date: 30 October 2026

Case Overview

The appeal was filed by Ramen Deka, suspended Director of the Corporate Debtor, under Section 61(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, challenging the order dated 21 August 2026 passed by the NCLT Guwahati (Adjudicating Authority). The NCLT had allowed UCO Bank's application under Section 7 of the IB Code (CP (IB) No. 26/GB/2025) and initiated Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the Corporate Debtor.

The appellant contended that the Adjudicating Authority committed illegality by deciding the Section 7 application without first disposing of IA No. 127 of 2026, which raised serious questions regarding the quantum of debt, adjustment of payments, sale proceeds, validity of default, and pendency of proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) Guwahati Bench.

The core dispute centered on UCO Bank's claim of Rs. 20,300,950.93 as of 31 July 2025, which the appellant argued was neither verified nor properly reconciled. The appellant specifically claimed that the bank had realized approximately Rs. 1.3 crore from the sale of mortgage property, Rs. 4,000,000 from property at Chindarai Nagar, Bhangagarh, Guwahati, and approximately Rs. 50 lakhs from property at Village Digheli, District Nalbari, Assam. The appellant argued that if these amounts were properly adjusted, the residual debt would be below the Rs. 1 crore threshold under Section 4 of the Code.

The appellant also disputed the Record of Default issued through National e-Governance Services Limited (NeSL) as neither authenticated nor acknowledged by the Corporate Debtor, and highlighted that SARFAESI proceedings were pending before DRT where stay was granted regarding possession, valuation and sale of secured assets.

The NCLAT examined the impugned order where the Adjudicating Authority had addressed seven specific issues, including the threshold question. On the critical issue of whether the default amount meets the Rs. 1 crore threshold, the Adjudicating Authority held that the threshold must be assessed with reference to the debt due as on the date of default (15 March 2024, NPA classification date), not with reference to sums realized at a later indeterminate time. The Authority also noted the appellant's contradictory position of simultaneously challenging the SARFAESI sale while claiming credit for its proceeds.

Final Outcome

The NCLAT found that the Adjudicating Authority had considered the appellant's objections and passed a reasoned order. The Appellate Tribunal declined to grant any ad interim injunction without providing opportunity of hearing to the respondents (UCO Bank). Notice was issued to the respondents for both the appeal and stay application. The appellant's counsel was directed to complete necessary steps within three working days. The matter was listed for further hearing on 26 November 2026 under the caption 'For Admission (After Notice)'.

Topics: Insolvency Appeal, Debt Threshold Dispute, SARFAESI Proceedings