Mr. Prajit Prasannan Share Holder / Director (Power Suspended) vs Bhagwati Trading Co. Thr Its Proprietor Sh. Pradeep Kumar Bansal & Ors.

1

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

CA (AT) (Ins) No. 1465 of 2026

IN THE MATTER OF:
Prajit Prasannan …Appellant(s)

Versus
Bhagwati Trading Co. Through
Its Proprietor & Anr.
…Respondent(s)
Present:
For Appellant(s) : Mrs. Monica Goel, Advocate.
For
Respondent(s)
Mr. Samit Khosla, Advocate for R-1.
:

O R D E R
(Hybrid Mode)
[Per: Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan (Oral)]
08.09.2026 : Heard Ld. Counsel for the Appellant as well as Mr. Samit
Khosla, Ld. Counsel appearing for operational creditor/Respondent No. 1 and
perused the record.
2. The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order
dated 05.08.2026 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Principal
Bench, New Delhi (Adjudicating Authority) on an application moved by the
Respondent No. 1 under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code,
2016 (Code) in CP (IB) No. 176 (PB)/2026 whereby the CIRP was initiated
against the appellant.

3. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant vehemently submits that the parties had
arrived at an amicable settlement during the pendency of the proceedings
before the Ld. Adjudicating Authority and in this regard a settlement deed i.e.
MoU was also written, a copy of which has been placed as Annexure A-3 (pg

2

no.83 of the appeal paper book) of date 29.07.2026 whereby the parties have
amicably resolved the dispute and nothing remained disputed between the
Respondent No. 1 and the appellant, on the date when the impugned order
has been passed.
4. While drawing our attention towards the clause no. 4 of the Settlement
Deed/MoU, it is submitted that it was clearly stipulated therein that the
Respondent No. 1 would withdraw the proceedings pending before the Ld.
Adjudicating Authority after the execution and signing of this MoU. However
due to constraints this MoU/settlement deed could not be produced before
the Ld. Adjudicating Authority as the order could not be brought in the notice
of the Ld. Adjudicating Authority on the day when the order was reserved.
However, an application bearing diary no. 07101020207442026 was moved
by the Respondent No.1/OC on 31.07.2026 along with the copy of the
settlement deed/MoU however as the said application was lying in defects,
could not produce timely before the Bench which had seized of the matter.
5. It is further submitted that since the dispute had already been settled
between the parties and on the day when the impugned order has been passed
there was no dispute pending before the parties therefore, there was no
occasion for the adjudicating authority to have passed the impugned order.
6. It is further submitted that an opportunity be provided to the parties to
approach the Ld. Adjudicating Authority by moving an application under
Section 12A of the Code read with Regulation 30 A of the CIRP Regulations,
2016 for withdrawal of the proceedings.
7. At this juncture, Ld. Counsel for the parties jointly submits that the
application which was moved by the Respondent No. 1 with the aforesaid diary

3

number was later on placed before the Ld. Adjudicating Authority as IA No.
3840/2026 and Ld. Adjudicating Authority taking cognizance of the same has
passed detailed order on 19.08.2026 whereby the notice has been issued to
the appellant and an issue has also been framed by the Ld. Adjudicating
Authority in terms as to whether the inherent powers under Rule 11 of the
NCLT Rules, 2016 may be invoked having regard to the facts and
circumstances of this case and one Advocate namely Shri Rishav Banerjee,
has also been appointed as Amicus and the matter was posted for 25.08.2026
and now the next date in that application is fixed as 09.09.2026.
8. We have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
9. So far as the Appellant and Respondent No. 1 is concerned they are in
agreement that prior to the passing of the impugned order the parties had
settled their dispute by entering into an amicable settlement and the terms of
same were also reduced in writing and the copy of the same has also been
placed on record.
10. It is also evident that one of the stipulation in the MoU/Settlement Deed
was that the Respondent No. 1/OC would withdraw the proceedings pending
before the Ld. Adjudicating Authority and in this regard an application was
also moved by the Respondent No. 1 before the Ld. Adjudicating Authority
however the same was lying in defects and could not be produced before the
Bench who was seized of the matter and ultimately the impugned order was
passed on 05.08.2026 and after the clearing of the defects the said application
moved by the Respondent No. 1 i.e. IA No. 3804/2026 was produced before
the Ld. Adjudicating on 19.08.2026 and now the next date in that application
is reported to be 09.09.2026.

4

11. Having considered all the facts and circumstances of this case, we
dispose of this appeal in terms that the parties may pursue their grievance
before the Ld. Adjudicating Authority in IA No. 3840/2026.
12. We also provide liberty to the Respondent No. 1 to move appropriate
application under Section 12A read with Regulation 30 A of the CIRP
Regulations, 2016 for the withdrawal of the CIRP proceedings pending before
the Ld. Adjudicating Authority, if any opportunity arises due to the fate of the
IA No. 3840/2026.
13. We further provide that till the final disposal of IA No. 3840/2026,
which is stated to be listed before the Ld. Adjudicating Authority on
09.09.2026, the interim order dated 12.08.2026 passed by us in this appeal
would remain in operation.
14. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.

[Justice Mohammad Faiz Alam Khan]
Member (Judicial)



[Naresh Salecha]
Member (Technical)

sr/mr