MUMBAI: The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) has accepted Canara Bank’s insolvency petition against Supreme Housing and Hospitality Private Limited, a Mumbai-based real estate firm, over outstanding dues exceeding ₹567 crore. This move follows several unsuccessful attempts at a one-time settlement and extended litigation.
The Mumbai bench of the tribunal commenced the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) against Supreme Housing on May 13 under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC).
Canara Bank indicated a default amounting to ₹567.43 crore as of October 31, 2025, which includes a principal amount of ₹175.83 crore and interest dues of ₹391.60 crore.
Prior to the tribunal’s ruling, Nitish Dhruva and Yash Dhruva from MDP Legal represented the lender, noting that the account became non-performing on September 29, 2017, after the borrower defaulted on repayments for a ₹390 crore lease rental discounting term loan authorized in 2014.
The tribunal confirmed the existence of debt and default based on loan documents, account statements, balance sheet acknowledgments, and settlement proposals exchanged between both parties.
This case has undergone multiple rounds of insolvency proceedings and negotiations over the past years. Canara Bank initially filed for insolvency against the company in 2020, with its petition being admitted in November 2022. However, those proceedings were later closed after both parties reached a one-time settlement.
In a separate instance, ICICI Bank also initiated CIRP against the same company in 2024, but those proceedings were withdrawn after a settlement was achieved under Section 12A of the IBC.
As per the tribunal’s order, Supreme Housing proposed a second one-time settlement to Canara Bank in June 2025 to resolve its dues for ₹460 crore. The bank accepted this proposal, where ₹24.2 crore held in escrow and fixed deposits was adjusted up front, while the remaining ₹437 crore was to be settled within 90 days after the company’s exit from the CIRP.
However, the company reportedly failed to meet the payment deadline of October 28, 2025. Following this default, the bank issued a notice of breach and initiated recovery actions, including an e-auction notice for secured assets.
The company, through its attorney Rohan Agrawal, contested the insolvency petition, arguing that the proceedings against its personal guarantors under Section 95 of the IBC triggered a moratorium under Section 96, preventing parallel proceedings against the corporate debtor for the same debt.
The tribunal, however, stated that the liabilities of personal guarantors and the borrower firm arise from distinct contracts, and that the interim moratorium applicable to the guarantors does not extend to insolvency proceedings against the corporate debtor.
