# CA Santanu Brahma vs. Indian Bank & State Bank of India

> NCLAT judgment dated 2025-08-29. Citation: TCN-2025-NCLAT-00632. CA Santanu Brahma, the Liquidator of M/s. Maheswary Ispat Limited (Corporate Debtor), filed…

- **Court:** NCLAT
- **Order date:** 29 Aug 2025
- **Citation:** TCN-2025-NCLAT-00632
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/ca-santanu-brahma-vs-indian-bank-state-bank-of-india-3zhcz

## Summary

### Background

CA Santanu Brahma, the Liquidator of M/s. Maheswary Ispat Limited (Corporate Debtor), filed an appeal against an NCLT order dated 05.02.2025. This order denied the Liquidator fees from the sale of the Corporate Debtor's Panagarh Factory. The original winding-up proceedings, initiated by Tata Capital Limited in 2011, were transferred from the Calcutta High Court to the NCLT in May 2022, leading to the Liquidator's appointment in December 2023. The Respondent Banks, Indian Bank and State Bank of India, as secured financial creditors, chose to realize their security interest over the Panagarh Factory under Section 52 of the IBC, rather than relinquishing it. They provided undertakings to pay liquidation costs, including the Liquidator's fees, as per the IBBI (Liquidation

…

## Facts

CA Santanu Brahma was appointed Liquidator of M/s. Maheswary Ispat Limited (Corporate Debtor) by NCLT, Kolkata, on 19.12.2023, following the transfer of winding-up proceedings from the Calcutta High Court in May 2022.

Indian Bank and State Bank of India (Respondent Banks), as secured financial creditors, opted not to relinquish their security interest over the Panagarh Factory and intended to realize it under Section 52 of the IBC.

The Liquidator undertook various crucial steps, including coordinating the handover of the Panagarh Factory from the Official Liquidator, securing the premises, resolving disputes between the Respondent Banks regarding their respective charges, and assisting with buyer coordination, which facilitated the asset's sale.

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the liquidator can be denied his entitlement to fees under Regulation 4(2)(b) read with …

**Ratio:** A liquidator is statutorily entitled to fees as part of liquidation costs under

…

**Reasoning:** The NCLAT held that the NCLT had misinterpreted the provisions and ignored binding

…

**Interpretation:** The NCLAT interpreted 'realization' and 'distribution' in Regulation 4(2)(b)

…

**Application:** Applying the established legal principles and precedents, the NCLAT found that

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** Ashok Bh…; N. Sesha…; +1 more
- **Appellants:** CA Santanu…; Tata Capital…
- **Respondents:** M/s. Maheswary…; Indian…; +1 more
- **Other parties:** Analysis co…; HXsHnr3Ug9OhFhqk4g…
- **Advocates:** Shounak…; Ishan Roy…; +5 more

## Timeline

- **2011-N/A-N/A — Company Petiti…**: A Company Petition (C.P. No. 560 of 2011) was filed by Tata Capital Limited before the…
- **2012-10-12 — Petition Ad…**: The Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta admitted the company petition against the Corporate…

## Legal provisions

- [Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 61(1) — Appeals and Appellate Authority](https://caseease.in/legal-provisions/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016/section-61)

---

This is a preview. The full structured summary, issues, precedents and source judgment are available on CaseEase - Legal Intelligence Simplified: https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/ca-santanu-brahma-vs-indian-bank-state-bank-of-india-3zhcz