Case Law Details
Sanjeev Mahajan Vs Nimitaya Hotel Resorts Ltd. (NCLT Delhi)
NCLT Delhi Rejects Transfer of Insolvency Proceedings from Special Bench, Imposes ₹50,000 Costs for Material Concealment
The Transfer Application was filed by the ex-promoter of Nimitaya Hotel and Resorts Ltd. (Corporate Debtor) seeking transfer of CP(IB) No. 1913/2019, titled Indian Bank (Erstwhile Allahabad Bank) vs. Nimitaya Hotel & Resorts Limited, along with all connected interlocutory applications pending before the NCLT, New Delhi Special Bench, to another appropriate Bench.
The applicant submitted that although the insolvency matter had been assigned to the Special Bench, no effective hearing had taken place and the proceedings had been unnecessarily delayed. On this basis, it was contended that the matter should be transferred to a regular Bench.
The respondents opposed the application and submitted that the applicant had earlier filed Transfer Application No. TA(IBC)29(PB)/2023 seeking transfer of the same petition, which had been dismissed as not pressed by order dated 20.10.2023. It was further submitted that the applicant had also filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court seeking, among other reliefs, transfer of the matter from the Special Bench to another Bench, but neither the earlier transfer application nor the corresponding prayer in the writ petition had been disclosed in the present transfer application. It was also pointed out that notice had been issued in the writ petition on 30.04.2026, but no interim order had been passed.
The Tribunal noted that CP(IB) No. 1913/2019 was originally being heard by Court-V, NCLT, New Delhi. However, both Members of that Bench recused themselves from hearing the matter on 09.12.2025. Following the recusal, the then President of the NCLT constituted a Special Bench through an administrative order dated 06.01.2026 to hear the matter.
The Tribunal further observed that the record showed the Special Bench had already heard the matter and had passed orders, including orders dated 15.04.2026 and 20.05.2026.
On examining the pleadings, the Tribunal found that the applicant had not disclosed that an earlier transfer application had been filed and subsequently dismissed as not pressed. It also found that although the writ petition before the Delhi High Court had been referred to, the applicant had failed to disclose that the writ petition contained a prayer seeking transfer of the case from the Special Bench to another Bench or, alternatively, a direction for day-to-day hearing.
The Tribunal observed that an applicant is required to disclose all material facts, including those adverse to its case, and stated that it could not approve the withholding of material information. It further observed that a transfer application cannot be allowed merely at the request of a party and that transfer from one court to another should be ordered only in compelling circumstances, such as where transfer is necessary for consolidation, to avoid conflicting or inconsistent orders, or where there is a reasonable apprehension of bias.
During the hearing, the applicant submitted that the omission to disclose the earlier transfer application and the prayer in the writ petition was a bona fide mistake. An affidavit was filed placing on record a copy of the writ petition pending before the Delhi High Court. The Tribunal, however, observed that these facts ought to have been disclosed in the transfer application itself, particularly when the application extended to 73 pages and the accompanying documents comprised 833 pages across five volumes.
The Successful Resolution Applicant also submitted that it was a necessary party but had intentionally not been impleaded by the applicant with the object of delaying the proceedings.
Considering the facts and circumstances, the Tribunal held that no grounds existed for transferring the insolvency proceedings from the Special Bench where they were pending adjudication.
The Tribunal dismissed TA(IBC)-28(PB)/2026 on account of material concealment and imposed costs of ₹50,000, directing the applicant to deposit the amount in the Prime Minister National Relief Fund and to file proof of such payment.
FULL TEXT OF THE NCLT JUDGMENT/ORDER
1. The instant Transfer Application is filed by the Ex-Promoter of Nimitaya Hotel and Resorts Ltd. (Corporate Debtor) seeking transfer of CP(IB) No. 1913/2019 titled “Indian Bank (Erstwhile Allahabad bank) vs. Nimitaya Hotel & Resorts Limited’ along with all connected interlocutory applications presently pending before the NCLT, New Delhi Special Bench, to any other appropriate Bench.
2. Ld. Sr. Counsel Mr. Abhinav Mukherjee for the Applicant submits that although the matter had been assigned to the Special Bench but no effective hearing has taken place and the matter has been unnecessarily delayed. He further submits that in the facts and circumstances of the case, since the matter is not being heard it ought to be transferred to a Regular Bench.
3. Ld. Counsel Mr. Abhishek Anand has put in appearance on behalf of the Respondent nos. 1 and 2 and submits that a similar Transfer Application no. TA(IBC)29(PB)/2023 seeking for transfer of the petition had previously been filed by the applicant, which was dismissed as not being pressed vide order dated 20.10.2023. The same has not been disclosed in the instant application.
4. He further submits that the applicant has also preferred a writ petition before the High Court of Delhi wherein one of the prayers seeks transfer of the case from Special Bench to any other Bench which has also not been disclosed in the instant Transfer Application. It is stated that notice has been issued in this application vide order dated 30.04.2026, however no interim order has been passed.
5. Heard.
6. The CP(IB) No. 1913/2019 was earlier being heard by the Court-V, NCLT, New Delhi. However, both the Members constituting the said Bench recused themselves from hearing the matter on 09.12.2025. Thereafter, pursuant to the aforesaid recusal, the then President, NCLT constituted a Special Bench vide administrative order dated 06.01.2026 for hearing the matter.
7. A perusal of the record indicates that the matter has since been heard by the Special Bench and the orders have passed therein, including orders dated 15.04.2026 and 20.05.2026.
8. It is manifest from the perusal of the pleadings in the instant Transfer Application that the applicant has not disclosed the fact that an application was previously filed for transfer and was subsequently dismissed as not pressed. The order dated 20.10.2023 is reproduced hereunder:
Although reference has been made to the writ petition filed before the High Court of Delhi but there was no disclosure about the fact that a prayer for transfer of the case from special Bench to any other Bench was made therein, as has been made in the instant transfer application. The prayer made in the writ petition is reproduced hereunder:
“c. Issue appropriate directions to the Ld. National Company Law Tribunal to transfer the present matter from the Special Bench to the Regular Bench, in the interest of justice and for proper adjudication of the case, or alternatively direct the bench to conduct day to day hearing;”
9. It was enjoined upon the applicant to disclose all the material facts including those which go against him. This Court cannot approve of such conduct of the applicant to withhold material information from the Court.
10. A transfer application cannot be allowed at the mere asking of the party. A matter ought to be transferred from one court to another only in compelling circumstances, including as where transfer is necessary for consolidation, to avoid conflicts or inconsistent orders, or where there exists a reasonable apprehension of bias.
11. At this stage Ld. Counsel for the applicant submits that although the factum of the previous Transfer Application filed before this Adjudicating Authority, and the prayer being made in the writ petition pending before the High Court has not been specifically disclosed in the application, the nondisclosure of the aforesaid facts was a bona fide mistake. Today, by way of an affidavit the applicant has placed on record the copy of writ petition filed before the High Court of Delhi, which is not yet available on record.
12. Be that as it may. The applicant ought to have disclosed the aforesaid facts in the present application itself. It is significant to note that the present application runs into 73 pages, and the accompanying documents comprise of 833 pages in total (5 volumes.)
13. Ld. Counsel Mr. Sumesh Dhawan for the SRA submits that he is a necessary party but intentionally, has not been impleaded by the applicant with the intent to delay the proceedings.
14. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I do not find any ground whatsoever to transfer the case from the Special Bench where it is currently pending adjudication.
15. In view of the aforenoted material concealment, TA(IBC)-28(PB)/2026 is dismissed with cost of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) to be paid to the Prime Minister National Relief Fund by the applicant. The applicant is also directed to file a proof of the same.
Author Bio
