Axis Bank Limited v. Naren Seth & Anr.

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: Vikram Nath
Satish Chandra Sharma
Judgment Date: 2024-01-19
Court Decision / Holding: Delay condoned. The word 'unsecured creditor' referred to in paragraph 20 of the judgment dated 12.09.2023 is to be read as 'secured creditor'. The judgment dated 12.09.2023 is corrected to the above extent only. Miscellaneous Application disposed of accordingly.
Final Disposition: Miscellaneous Application disposed of; delay condoned; correction to the judgment’s para 20 implemented.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Axis Bank Limited

Respondents

Naren Seth
Anr.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sanjiv Sen
• Ujjal Banerjee
• Akash Khurana

Counsels for Respondents

• Neha Sharma
• Surya Prakash
• Megha Karnwal
• Arjun Bhatia
• Devesh Dubey
• Mahima Kapur
• Divya Singh Pundir
• Vikas Mehta

Case Synopsis & Summary

Axis Bank Limited v. Naren Seth & Anr. concerns a Miscellaneous Application filed in the Supreme Court seeking clarification of its earlier judgment in Civil Appeal No. 2085 of 2022, reported in [2023] 14 SCR 581. The central issue concerns the correct status attributed to creditors under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and the interplay with the Limitation Act, 1963. In the order under review, the Court notes that para 20 of the 2023 judgment used the term 'unsecured creditor' but, in the context of a bank's secured claim, this phrase would distort the intended allocation of rights among creditors. After hearing counsel for both sides, the Court holds that the word 'unsecured creditor' in para 20 must be read as 'secured creditor' and that the judgment requires correction to reflect this reading. The correction is limited to this lexical/interpretive change and does not alter the remainder of the decision. The delay in filing the Miscellaneous Application is condoned, and the application is disposed of accordingly. The proceedings reinforce the principle that the correct identification of creditor status is essential to apply the IBC and the related remedial provisions; the correction serves to prevent misinterpretation and provide clarity to the parties and practitioners.

Provisions of Law Cited

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016Limitation Act, 1963

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

Application by Axis Bank Limited seeking clarification of the judgment dated 12.09.2023 in Civil Appeal No.2085 of 2022. The appellant contends that para 20 of that judgment uses the term 'unsecured creditor' in a manner that could misstate the creditor status and its implications under the IBC, and that the word should be read as 'secured creditor' to reflect the correct legal position.

Contentions of Respondents

The document does not set out detailed submissions by the respondents; the order records the hearing of counsel and the due consideration given to the issue, with no elaboration of opposing contentions in the provided text.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Axis Bank Ltd. v. Naren Seth & Anr.	[2023] 14 SCR 581	Partly Overruled / Limited	The current judgment corrects the wording in para 20 of the Axis Bank decision, reading 'unsecured creditor' as 'secured creditor', thereby partially modifying that decision's wording in this limited respect.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

[2024] 1 S.C.R. 1183 : 2024 INSC 105 ## **Axis Bank Limited** ## **v.** ## **Naren Seth & Anr.** (M.A. No. 190 of 2024) In (Civil Appeal No. 2085 of 2022) 19 January 2024 **[Vikram Nath and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ.]** ## **Issue for Consideration** Application was filed by the applicant-appellant seeking clarification of the judgment reported in [2023] 14 SCR 581. ## **Headnotes** **Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Limitation Act, 1963 – Judgment reported in [2023] 14 SCR 581, corrected to an extent – Word “unsecured creditor” referred in para 20 of the judgment to be read as “secured creditor”.** ## **Case Law Cited** _Axis Bank Ltd. v. Naren Seth & Anr.,_ **[2023] 14 SCR** **581 – Corrected to an extent.** ## **List of Acts** ## **Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; Limitation Act, 1963** ## **List of Keywords** Insolvency; Bankruptcy; Limitation; Clarification of judgment; Correction in judgment; Unsecured creditor; Secured creditor ## **Case Arising From** CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Miscellaneous Application No.190 Of 2024 From the Judgment and Order dated 22.09.2021 of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.930 of 2021. [2024] 1 S.C.R. 1184 ## **Digital Supreme Court Reports** ## **Appearances for Parties** Sanjiv Sen, Sr. Adv., Ujjal Banerjee, Akash Khurana, Advs. for the Appellant. Ms. Neha Sharma, Surya Prakash, Ms. Megha Karnwal, Arjun Bhatia, Devesh Dubey, Ms. Mahima Kapur, Ms. Divya Singh Pundir, Vikas Mehta, Advs. for the Respondents. ## **Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court** ## **Order** Delay condoned. 2. This application is filed by the applicant- appellant seeking clarification of the judgment dated 12.09.2023 passed in Civil Appeal No.2085 of 2022. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. The word “unsecured creditor” referred to in paragraph 20 of the judgment be now read as “secured creditor”. 5. Judgment dated 12.09.2023 is corrected to the above extent only. 6. Miscellaneous application is disposed of accordingly. _Headnotes prepared by:_ Bibhuti Bhushan Bose _Result of the case:_ M.A. disposed of.