Sunil Kumar Dahiya Vs Lavkash Verma (NCLAT Delhi)
Summary: The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi dismissed Sunil Kumar Dahiya’s appeal against the 10.10.2019 order admitting Vigneshwara Developers Pvt. Ltd. into insolvency under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. During final arguments, the appellant confined the challenge mainly to limitation.
The Tribunal noted the respondent’s case that default first occurred in 2015, that the March 2018 revival/arrangement scheme acknowledged the respondent’s dues, and that failure to hand over possession constituted a continuing cause of action. It also recorded that the Delhi High Court had ultimately found the revival scheme unworkable and, by order dated 24.09.2025, considered revival of IBC proceedings appropriate. Relying on NCLAT decisions concerning continuing breach and acknowledgment, the Tribunal held that the debt could not be treated as time-barred.
It further noted the Delhi High Court’s reference to the Supreme Court position that pending winding-up proceedings do not bar independent proceedings under Sections 7 or 9 of the IBC. Finding no merit in the appeal, the NCLAT dismissed Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1375 of 2019, disposed of all related IAs and made no order as to costs.
Cases Discussed
- Innoventive Industries Limited Vs. ICICI Bank, (2018) 1 SCC 407 (Supreme Court) — Cited by appellant on the objective and operation of the IBC; the order records the appellant’s reliance.
- Swiss Ribbons (P) Ltd. Vs. Union of India, (2019) 4 SCC 17 (Supreme Court) — Cited by appellant on revival as an objective of the Code.
- Action Ispat vs. Shyam Vetallics and Energy Ltd., Company Appeal No. 11/2019, decided 10.10.2019 (Delhi High Court) — Cited by appellant regarding parallel proceedings.
- B.K. Educational Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Parag Gupta and Associates, 2018 SCC OnLine SC 1921 (Supreme Court) — Relied on by appellant for Article 137 and the three-year limitation framework for Section 7 applications.
- Gaurav Hargovindbhai Dave v. Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd. & Anr., C.A. No. 4952 of 2019, decided 18.09.2019 (Supreme Court) — Relied on by appellant on limitation under Section 7.
- Sagar Sharma & Anr. v. Phoenix ARC Private Limited, C.A. No. 7673 of 2019, decided 30.09.2019 (Supreme Court) — Relied on by appellant on limitation under Section 7.
- Shailendra Agarwal vs Asit Upadhyaya & Ors., 2025 SCC OnLine NCLAT 785 (NCLAT) — Relied on by Respondent No.1; the Tribunal found it supported the respondent on continuing breach/continuing cause of action.
- Navin M. Raheja Vs. Vipul Jain & Ors., Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 2168/2024; 2026 SCC OnLine NCLAT 761 (NCLAT) — Relied on by Respondent No.1; the Tribunal found it supported admission where possession was not handed over and default continued.
- Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited vs Kew Precision Parts Private Limited, (2022) 9 SCC 364 (Supreme Court) — Cited by Respondent No.1 in support of the acknowledgment/fresh cause of action submission.
- A. Navinchandra case (Supreme Court) — Delhi High Court’s view, reproduced by NCLAT, was that admitted winding-up proceedings do not bar independent Section 7 or Section 9 IBC proceedings.
FULL TEXT OF THE NCLAT JUDGMENT/ORDER
