# In the matter of Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Vs. Resolution Professional of Unity Infraprojects Ltd. CA (AT) (Ins) No. 175-177 of 2021

> NCLAT judgment dated 2021-03-09. Citation: TCN-2021-NCLAT-00327. The case involves an appeal against orders passed by the National Company Law Tribunal…

- **Court:** NCLAT
- **Order date:** 9 Mar 2021
- **Citation:** TCN-2021-NCLAT-00327
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/kotak-mahindra-bank-ltd-vs-resolution-professional-of-unity-infraprojects-ltd-ca-065f33f5

## Summary

### Background

The case involves an appeal against orders passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai Bench, concerning Company Petition (IB) No.1058/MB/2017. The appellant is challenging the NCLT's decision to defer pronouncement of orders in M.A. Nos.227 of 2018, 350 of 2018, and 423 of 2020, and directing the Committee of Creditors (COC) to consider the application of a potential Resolution Applicant, Mantena Constructions Pvt. Ltd. The appellant contends that the NCLT has repeatedly been directed to dispose of these M.A.s, which remain pending. The corporate debtor is Unity Infraprojects Ltd.

## Facts

Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. filed an appeal against orders passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai Bench, in Company Petition (IB) No.1058/MB/2017. The Resolution Professional of Unity Infraprojects Ltd. is the respondent. The NCLT orders being challenged deferred pronouncements on M.A. Nos.227 of 2018, 350 of 2018, and 423 of 2020, and directed the Committee of Creditors (COC) to consider the application of Mantena Constructions Pvt. Ltd. as a potential Resolution Applicant. The appellant argues that the NCLT has been repeatedly directed to dispose of these M.A.s, which remain pending. The Corporate Debtor, Unity Infraprojects Ltd., is considered for liquidation. M.A. 227 of 2018 relates to the Corporate Debtor needing to be liquidated, and M.A. 350 of

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT) erred in deferring pronouncements on M.A. Nos.227 of …

**Ratio:** The ratio is based on the principle that adjudicating authorities should act

…

**Reasoning:** The court reasoned that the appellant had a valid grievance because the NCLT had deferred

…

**Interpretation:** The interpretation is that delaying decisions on pending applications (M.A.s)

…

**Application:** The ratio and reasoning were applied to the specific facts of the case, where

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** A.I.S. C…; Alok Sriv…
- **Appellants:** Kotak Mahindra…
- **Respondents:** Unity Infraproject…; Resolution…
- **Advocates:** Himanshu B…; Kunal V…; +2 more

## Timeline

- **2021-01-27 — Order Da…**: One of the orders passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal,…
- **2021-02-02 — Order Da…**: One of the orders passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal,…

---

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/kotak-mahindra-bank-ltd-vs-resolution-professional-of-unity-infraprojects-ltd-ca-065f33f5