The Supreme Court on Thursday (July 9) dismissed the appeals filed by the suspended director of Parsvnath Developers Ltd., upholding the revival of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process proceedings against the real estate group in a default case involving approximately ₹452 crore.

A partial court working days bench of Justice KV Viswanathan and Justice Alok Aradhe refused to interfere with the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal's (NCLAT) order, which had upheld the NCLT's decision to revive the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the Corporate Debtor i.e., Parsvnath Developers Ltd.

Parsvnath Developers-Corporate Debtor had availed loan facilities from Sammaan Capital Ltd. starting in 2018, with the total default claimed at approximately ₹942 crores. The debt was later assigned to Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd. (ARCIL). In February 2025, the Section 7 petition was withdrawn after Parsvnath deposited ₹75 crores, with NCLT granting liberty to revive the petition if payments were not made as per the schedule.

However, ARCIL later backed out of the settlement, stating it was "not commercially viable," and filed a revival application. NCLT revived the petition in August 2025 and subsequently admitted CIRP against both the principal borrower and the corporate guarantor. NCLAT upheld the admission, leading to an appeal before the Supreme Court by the suspended directors of the developers.

Before the Supreme Court, it was argued on behalf of the Appellant-suspended directors that the corporate debtor's repeated attempts to settle the matter after the revival order could not be construed as an admission of default.

Respondent-ARCIL opposed the appeals, submitting that debt and default were clearly established. It pointed out that in proceedings initiated by the corporate debtor before the Delhi High Court, the debtor had acknowledged outstanding instalments and undertaken to deposit ₹75 crore. Of this amount, only ₹25 crore was deposited with the court registry.

Upon hearing the counsels for the parties, the Court was not inclined to accept the Appellant's contention, upon taking a note of Feb., 2025 NCLT order which recorded that "if the amount of debt is not repaid as per the schedule, the petitioner who is seeking to withdraw the captioned petition today would be entitled to seek revival of the same."

The Court approved the NCLAT's findings that the corporate debtor's subsequent efforts to settle the matter could not be used to challenge the revival; in fact, those efforts themselves indicated acknowledgment of the outstanding dues.

Resultantly, the appeal was dismissed.

Cause Title: SANJEEV KUMAR JAIN Versus ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY (INDIA) LIMITED AND ANR. (and connected matter)

Related - IBC | Mere Pendency Of Restructuring Arrangements Cannot Stall CIRP : Supreme Court