A petition filed before the National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi Court III (Special Bench) by Unity Small Finance Bank Limited against B9 Beverages Limited (corporate debtor) under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) was being heard by a Coram of Mr. Ashok Kumar Bhardwaj (Member, Judicial) and Mr. Ravindra Chaturvedi (Member, Technical).
The counsel for the corporate debtor submitted that in effect he was not counsel for the debtor but was representing the financial creditor who wanted to infuse funds in the corporate debtor to revive the same. It was submitted that the matter was being taken up with Unity Small Finance Bank (applicant) for settlement, but that most of the creditors refused any possibility of settlement. Unity Small Finance Bank produced a letter dated 10-09-2026 to espouse that an offer of Rs. 3 crores against Rs. 19,04,16,479.31.00/- could not be described as a plausible offer to settle the debt in any manner.
Axis Bank Limited submitted that it had received some offer for settlement and was considering the same. The applicants in other applications also vented their concern that it was only an attempt on behalf of the corporate debtor to buy time to pilfer its assets, and that the matter was pending for more than 10 months awaiting consideration for admission.
NCLT noted that in some of the applications, the corporate debtor had espoused that the matter would be settled with the creditors and that the creditors would turn up before the Tribunal with no grievance left. However, the Court stated that circumstances did not develop the way the same were projected and suggested by the corporate debtor. The corporate debtor produced a chart to indicate the changing shareholding, but the Tribunal was unable to appreciate how the chart could be relevant at this stage and perceived it only as an attempt to mislead the Tribunal.
Since the possibility of settlement had been urged on behalf of some financer who wanted to infuse funds, the Tribunal directed that counsel representing the corporate debtor, along with the financial creditors who wanted to infuse the fund and the promoters, to meet the representative of the creditors in the office of Adv. Eshna Kumar. The Applicants in all the applications, who wished to revive the company, were directed to meet in the presence of Adv. Eshna Kumar, who would mediate in the matter.
The Tribunal clarified that if no settlement was arrived between the parties, no further indulgence would be shown in the matter. The fee of the mediator was directed to be negotiated between the mediator and the corporate debtor and would be payable by corporate debtor. As some of the creditors apprehended that the assets of the corporate debtor may be siphoned off, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to direct that no assets of the corporate debtor would be parted with, and that the counsel for the financer would carry inventory of all assets of the corporate debtor and hand over copies of the same to the creditors.
The matter was directed to be listed on 18-09-2026.
