MUMBAI: The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) has admitted Canara Bank’s insolvency plea against Mumbai-based real estate company Supreme Housing and Hospitality Private Limited over alleged dues exceeding Rs 567 crore, after multiple failed one-time settlement (OTS) attempts and prolonged litigation.
The Mumbai bench of the tribunal, in an order dated May 13, initiated the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) against the company under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC).
Canara Bank claimed a default of Rs 567.43 crore as on October 31, 2025, including a principal outstanding of Rs 175.83 crore and interest dues of Rs 391.60 crore.
Before the tribunal’s order, Nitish Dhruva and Yash Dhruva of MDP Legal appeared for the lender and told that the account had turned non-performing on September 29, 2017, after the borrower defaulted on repayment of a Rs 390 crore lease rental discounting term loan sanctioned in 2014.
Also read | High-activity industrial clusters to dominate India warehousing growth
The tribunal observed that the existence of debt and default was established through loan and security documents, statements of account, balance sheet acknowledgements and settlement proposals exchanged between the parties.
The matter has seen several rounds of insolvency proceedings, appeals and settlement negotiations over the past few years. Canara Bank had first initiated insolvency proceedings against the company in 2020 and secured admission of its petition in November 2022. However, the proceedings were later closed after both parties entered into a one-time settlement.
Separately, ICICI Bank had also initiated CIRP against the company in 2024. Those proceedings were subsequently withdrawn after a settlement was reached under Section 12A of the IBC.
According to the order, Supreme Housing and Hospitality submitted a second OTS proposal to Canara Bank in June 2025 to settle dues for Rs 460 crore. The lender accepted the proposal, under which Rs 24.2 crore available in escrow and fixed deposits was adjusted upfront, while the remaining Rs 437 crore was to be paid within 90 days after the company exited CIRP.
Also read | Mumbai’s eastern corridor gains traction as firms expand beyond BKC
However, the company allegedly failed to honour the timeline and did not pay the balance amount by October 28, 2025. Following the default, the bank issued a notice recording the breach and also initiated recovery proceedings, including issuance of an e-auction notice for secured assets.
The company, through its counsel Rohan Agrawal opposed the insolvency petition, arguing that proceedings initiated against its personal guarantors under Section 95 of the IBC triggered a moratorium under Section 96, thereby barring parallel insolvency proceedings against the corporate debtor for the same debt.
The tribunal held that liabilities of personal guarantors and the borrower company arise from separate contracts and that the interim moratorium applicable to guarantors does not extend to insolvency proceedings against the corporate debtor.
