Authority: National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi Bench Court-IV

Order Date: 09.07.2026

Case Overview

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) delivered a consolidated order addressing multiple Interlocutory Applications (IAs) filed in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) of Mabsoot Buildhomes India Private Limited (Corporate Debtor). The main application (IA No. 1367/ND/2025) was filed by the Resolution Professional (RP), Mr. Ajit Gyanchand Jain, under Section 66 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC).

The CIRP was initiated against Mabsoot Buildhomes on 02.05.2023 based on a petition filed by financial creditor L&T Finance Ltd. The RP, upon reviewing the corporate debtor's records and based on a transaction audit report by Ronak Jain & Co. (covering 01.04.2020 to 02.05.2023), identified several transactions alleged to be either fraudulent (under Section 66) or preferential (under Section 43). The RP filed separate applications for each category.

The respondents in the main application were the suspended directors of the corporate debtor: Yogesh Goswami (R1) and Govind Singh Bisht (R2). The application sought directions for the respondents to contribute specific amounts to the corporate debtor's assets, corresponding to the value of the alleged avoidance transactions.

The principal allegations concerned multiple transactions:

1. Sale of 167 Mortgaged Units: Alleged unauthorized sale of 167 out of 624 units mortgaged to L&T Finance, generating a consideration of ₹54.82 crore, without obtaining a No-Objection Certificate (NOC) from the lender, as mandated by the loan agreement.

2. Transaction with Supertech ORB Project Limited: An unsecured loan of ₹10.58 crore disbursed to this related party on 24.04.2023 and 02.05.2023 (the date of CIRP admission).

3. Transaction with Supertech Estate Private Limited: A payment of ₹4.23 crore made on 24.04.2023.

4. Transaction with Supertech Realtors Private Limited: A payment of ₹47 lakh made on 04.05.2023, two days after CIRP initiation.

5. Transaction with Union Bank of India: Payments totaling ₹5.53 crore made between 15.09.2021 and 07.10.2021 from the loan account to repay loans of other, unknown entities, constituting a misuse of designated loan funds.

The respondents contested the application, arguing it was barred by limitation as per Regulation 35A of the IBBI Regulations and defending the transactions as being in the ordinary course of business. They also raised issues regarding the change in directorship during the CIRP period.

The Tribunal analyzed the requirements of Sections 66 and 67 of the IBC. It condoned the delay in filing the application, ruling that the timelines in Regulation 35A are directory, not mandatory, and the delay was justified due to the respondents' non-cooperation in providing documents.

The Tribunal made specific findings on each transaction:

  • Sale of 167 Units: Held that a conclusive finding of fraud could not be made at this stage due to a lack of evidence (sale agreements, details for 109 units). The prayer for a contribution of ₹54.82 crore was dismissed, but the RP was granted liberty to re-approach the Tribunal upon receipt of further documents.
  • Supertech ORB Transaction (₹10.58 cr): Found to be fraudulent. The transaction, a loan to a related party very close to the CIRP date while the company itself was in distress, was not in the ordinary course of business and was detrimental to the corporate debtor.
  • Supertech Estate Transaction (₹4.23 cr): Found to be fraudulent. The timing of the payment, immediately after the account was declared an NPA, raised questions about intent, and the respondents failed to prove it was a mere return of an advance.
  • Supertech Realtors Transaction (₹47 lakh): Found to be fraudulent. A payment made just two days post-CIRP initiation was an active attempt to siphon funds.
  • Union Bank Transaction (₹5.53 cr): Found to be fraudulent. The diversion of specifically designated loan funds to repay unrelated entities' loans constituted a clear misuse of funds.

The Tribunal also ruled that the appointment of a new director during the CIRP by the suspended board was void ab initio, as managerial powers vest solely with the RP/CoC post-CIRP initiation.

In a related application (IA No. 1449/ND/2025 under Section 43), the Tribunal also found a preferential transaction where the corporate debtor repaid an unsecured loan of ₹2.50 crore to its 99% shareholder, Nitesh Kumar Arora, just before CIRP initiation, thereby preferring him over other creditors. This amount was also ordered to be contributed.

Final Outcome

The NCLT allowed the application in part. The suspended directors, Yogesh Goswami and Govind Singh Bisht, were directed to contribute the following amounts to the assets of the corporate debtor:

  • ₹10,58,00,000 (for Supertech ORB transaction)
  • ₹4,23,00,000 (for Supertech Estate transaction)
  • ₹47,00,000 (for Supertech Realtors transaction)
  • ₹5,53,56,700 (for Union Bank transaction)
  • ₹2,50,00,000 (for the preferential transaction with Nitesh Kumar Arora, from IA 1449/ND/2025)

Total: ₹71,81,56,700 (Seventy-One Crore Eighty-One Lakh Fifty-Six Thousand Seven Hundred Rupees)

The claim regarding the sale of 167 units was dismissed with liberty to re-file. The respondents were directed to provide all documents previously requested by the RP. The Registry was directed to send a copy of the order to the IBBI.

Topics: Insolvency Resolution, Fraudulent Trading, Director Liability