Authority: National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Kolkata Bench, Division Bench P-104 Court - II

Order Date: 17th June 2026

Case Overview

This proceeding concerns an Interlocutory Application (IA(I.B.C)/770(KB)2026) filed by the Corporate Debtor, Ideal Aurum Nirman LLP, in the main Company Petition (CP(IB)/272(KB)2025) initiated by the Financial Creditor, Yes Bank Limited, under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016. The application sought the recall of an order dated 09.06.2026, which had closed the Corporate Debtor's right to file a reply affidavit in the main insolvency petition.

The Corporate Debtor argued that its failure to file the reply was due to the unavailability of its designated partner, who was preoccupied with defending other proceedings initiated by the Financial Creditor against entities within the Ideal Group of Companies. It contended that no prejudice would be caused to any stakeholder if the reply was taken on record. The Financial Creditor, Yes Bank, vehemently opposed the application.

The Tribunal examined the procedural history, noting that the petition was first listed on 10th December 2025, but the hearing was deferred as a hard copy was not filed. Notice was issued to the Corporate Debtor on 16th February 2026, directing it to file a reply within fifteen days. On 08.04.2026, the Corporate Debtor's counsel requested an adjournment to file a Vakalatnama, which was granted, and the matter was adjourned to 09.06.2026 with a direction to complete pleadings. On 09.06.2026, the Corporate Debtor again sought an extension to file its reply, which was opposed by the Financial Creditor. The Tribunal then closed the Corporate Debtor's right to file the reply and listed the matter for final hearing.

The Tribunal's reasoning centered on the recent amendment to Section 7 of the IBC, introduced vide Government of India notification no. S.O 2625 dated 22.05.2026, which came into force on 26.05.2026. The amended Section 7(5) mandates that the Adjudicating Authority must, within fourteen days of receiving an application, either admit or reject it. The Tribunal cited the Hon'ble Supreme Court's observation in CA Ramchandra Dallaram Choudhary Vs. Adani Infrastructure and Developers Pvt. Limited (2026) that strict timelines under the IBC are meant to prevent misuse by dilatory tactics. While Rule 41 of the NCLT Rules, 2016 allows for the filing of a reply, the Tribunal held that this must be balanced against the statutory imperative for timely resolution. The Bench found that the Corporate Debtor had been granted more than four months to file its reply but had failed to do so, demonstrating a lack of diligence.

Final Outcome

The application (IA No. 770/KB/2026) was dismissed for being devoid of merit. The main Company Petition (CP(IB)/272(KB)2025) along with any pending applications was listed for hearing on 22.06.2026.

Topics: Insolvency Proceeding, Procedural Timeline, NCLT Order