Flint Group India Private Limited vs Cj Shah & Co.

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 521 of 2026
IN THE MATTER OF:
Flint Group India Pvt. Ltd. …Appellant

Versus
C J Shah & Co. …Respondent

Present:
For Appellant : Mr. Krishnendu Dutta & Mr. Abhijeet Sinha, Sr.
Advocates with Mr. Nitesh Jain, Ms. Samrudhi
Chothani, Ms. Angelika Awasthi, Mr. Kevin
Santhosh, Mr. Ish Dutt, Mr. Harsh Gurbani and
Mr. Arjun Gain, Advocates.

For Respondent : Mr. P. Nagesh & Mr. Saurabh Soparkar, Sr.
Advocates with Mr. Parth Gokale, Mr. Prateek
Gupta, Mr. Shalin Jani, Ms. Apeksha and Ms.
Rachna Dubey, Advocates.
WITH
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 524 of 2026
IN THE MATTER OF:
Flint Group India Pvt. Ltd. …Appellant

Versus
C J Shah & Co. …Respondent

Present:
For Appellant : Mr. Krishnendu Dutta & Mr. Abhijeet Sinha, Sr.
Advocates with Mr. Nitesh Jain, Ms. Samrudhi
Chothani, Ms. Angelika Awasthi, Mr. Kevin
Santhosh, Mr. Ish Dutt, Mr. Harsh Gurbani and
Mr. Arjun Gain, Advocates.

For Respondent : Mr. P. Nagesh & Mr. Saurabh Soparkar, Sr.
Advocates with Mr. Parth Gokale, Mr. Prateek
Gupta, Mr. Shalin Jani, Ms. Apeksha and Ms.
Rachna Dubey, Advocates.

O R D E R
(Hybrid Mode)
18.03.2026 : These two appeals have been filed by the same appellant
challenging the order dated 06.03.2026 & 13.03.2026 respectively passed by
the adjudicating authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Division Bench,
Court – I, Ahmedabad) in C.P. (IB) No.35(AHM)/2026.

2. The Section 9 was application filed by the respondent herein which
came to be heard on 06.03.2026, on which date, Court passed order
permitting the corporate debtor to deposit the amount involved in the present
matter in the name of Assistant Registrar, National Company Law Tribunal,
Ahmedabad. In paragraph 6 of the order, following was directed:
“6. Considering the rival submissions and in order to
safeguard the interest of both the parties at this stage,
the Respondent/Corporate Debtor is directed to
deposit the amount involved in the present matter in
the name of the Assistant Registrar, National Company
Law Tribunal, Ahmadabad Bench, in the form of a
Fixed Deposit within a period of three (3) days from the
date of this order.”
3. The appellant before us, who is the corporate debtor deposited the
amount by confirmation letter dated 10.03.2026 and filed an affidavit on
11.03.2026. On 13.03.2026 when the matter came for consideration
following order was passed by the adjudicating authority:
“Today, the matter is again taken up for hearing, and
we have heard the concluding arguments from both
sides and perused the records The written
submissions have already been filed by both sides
Further, Ld Sr. Counsel for the respondent has filed an
affidavit on 11 03.2026, vide inward diary No.D-2158,
which consists of Annexure R-3, a third deposit
confirmation letter dated 10.03.2026 of Rs
1,24,85,667.00 in favor of the Assistant Registrar of
this Tribunal
Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 521 & 524 of 2026
2 of 5

However, the affidavit contains certain conditions
specially mentioned in paragraph No. 8, whereas vide
order dated 06.03.2026, this Tribunal directed the
respondent/corporate debtor to deposit an amount
involved in the present matter in the name of the
Assistant Registrar in the form of a fixed deposit within
a period of three days only Hence, the same cannot be
taken on record, and accordingly, the same is returned
in original to the respondent/corporate debtor with
direction to the Assistant Registrar to release the fixed
deposit to the respondent/corporate debtor forthwith.
The order is reserved.”
4.
The submission of the counsel for the appellant is that in pursuance of
the order dated 06.03.2026, appellant was directed to deposit the entire
amount which amount was deposited. It is submitted that with respect to
release of the amount, in the affidavit paragraph 8 has been mentioned which
has been noticed by the adjudicating authority. It is submitted that the said
paragraph 8 of the affidavit in no manner can be a reason for directing that
amount be taken back from the Assistant Registrar of the Registry. It is
submitted that the statement made in paragraph 8 was not with regard to any
condition of deposit rather it was with regard to release or remittance to the
operational creditor as was mentioned in paragraph 8. It is submitted that
remittance or payment by corporate debtor was not in the hands of the
corporate debtor, due to various orders sanctions as noticed in the affidavit.
5.
Learned Sr. counsel Mr. P. Nagesh appearing for the operational
creditor submits that the matter has been heard and order is reserved. He,
however submits that operational creditor has no objection if the amount
deposited may remain with deposit before the Assistant Registrar.
6. We have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the records.
Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 521 & 524 of 2026
3 of 5

7. It is an admitted fact between the parties that in pursuance of the order
dated 06.03.2026 the corporate debtor has deposited the amount of
Rs.1,24,85,667/- within the time allowed. The paragraph 8 of the affidavit
which has been mentioned by the adjudicating authority in the order dated
13.03.2026 is as follows:
“8. In view of this binding legal prohibition, the
Respondent most humbly submits that the amount
deposited pursuant to the directions of this Hon'ble
Tribunal ought not be released, or remitted to the
Operational Creditor, as long as:
a. the U.S. primary sanctions under E.O. 13846
continue to apply Lo the Operational Creditor;
b. the Operational Creditor continues to remain in
the SDN List;
and
c. CJ Shah does not have any
licence/authorization from the OFAC, permitting
remittance by the Respondent to the Operational
Creditor.
Any release of the deposited amount to the Operational
Creditor prior to the satisfaction of all of the above
conditions would expose the Respondent to U.S.
sanctions risks.”
8. What has been stated in paragraph 8 was submission of the corporate
debtor that the amount ought not to be released or remitted to the operational
creditor so long as:
“a. the U.S. primary sanctions under E.O. 13846
continue to apply Lo the Operational Creditor;
b. the Operational Creditor continues to remain in the
SDN List; and
c. CJ Shah does not have any licence/authorization
from the OFAC, permitting remittance by the
Respondent to the Operational Creditor.”
Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 521 & 524 of 2026
4 of 5

9. We are of the view that paragraph 8 of the affidavit as noted above could
not have been any reason to direct for refund of the amount to the corporate
debtor who has deposited the same under the order of the Court.
10. Counsel for the appellant further submits that affidavit which has been
referred to in the impugned order has been directed to be returned.
11. We are of the view that direction of the order dated 13.03.2026 insofar
as it directs the amount deposited to be returned to the corporate debtor and
not accepting the affidavit is set aside. The amount deposited shall remain in
deposit before the Assistant Registrar which has also been agreed by the
operational creditor.
12. The order having already reserved by the adjudicating authority, it is
for the adjudicating authority to take a decision after considering the deposit
made and the affidavit dated 10.03.2026.
13. In view of the aforesaid, appellant need not take return of the amount
deposited as well as the affidavit. It shall be open for the parties to bring into
the notice of the Court the order passed in these appeals. We, however, make
it clear that this order need not be treated any reason for re-hearing.
14. The order dated 13.03.2026 is modified as above.
Both the appeals are disposed of accordingly.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan]
Chairperson


[Barun Mitra]
Member (Technical)
himanshu/md
Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 521 & 524 of 2026
5 of 5