NCLT Sends Bira, Creditors To Mediation, Warns No Further Indulgence If Talks Fail [Read Order]

New Delhi: The National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi, has directed B9 Beverages Limited (the maker of Bira beer), its promoters, a proposed financier seeking to infuse funds and revive the company, and its creditors to attempt a mediated settlement before an advocate-mediator, cautioning that no further indulgence would be shown if the meeting fails to produce a resolution, in a batch of insolvency petitions filed against the company as a common corporate debtor.

A Special Bench comprising Shri Ashok Kumar Bhardwaj, Member (Judicial), and Shri Ravindra Chaturvedi, Member (Technical), of NCLT New Delhi Court III, was hearing a batch of applications under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, filed against B9 Beverages Limited, including IB-580/ND/2025 filed by Unity Small Finance Bank Limited and IB-668/ND/2025 filed by Axis Bank Limited, in a hybrid hearing conducted physically and by video conference.

The proceedings arose out of multiple Section 7 petitions filed by different financial creditors against B9 Beverages Limited, all pending admission before the Tribunal for more than ten months. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Corporate Debtor clarified that he was, in substance, representing a financial creditor seeking to infuse funds into the company and revive it, and that this financier was in talks with the applicants for a settlement, though most creditors had refused any possibility of settlement. A settlement offer of Rs. 3 crores against an outstanding claim of Rs. 19,04,16,479.31, communicated through a letter dated 10.09.2026, was placed before the Tribunal but was not treated as a serious proposal. On 09.09.2026, the hearing in IB-580/ND/2025 had been deferred on an assurance that the matter would be settled with creditors, but this did not materialise, and counsel for the Corporate Debtor instead produced a shareholding chart which the Tribunal found irrelevant at this stage.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the financier seeking to infuse funds and revive the Corporate Debtor urged that there existed a genuine possibility of settlement with the creditors, and sought an opportunity for the Corporate Debtor, the promoters, and the financier to meet with the creditors' representatives to negotiate terms of resolution before the matter proceeded further on admission.

Counsel appearing for Axis Bank Limited, the applicant in IB-668/ND/2025, submitted that the Bank had received a settlement offer and was considering it. Counsel for the applicants in the other connected applications, however, opposed any further deferment, submitting that the conduct of the Corporate Debtor appeared to be a tactic to buy time and enable siphoning off of its assets, particularly given that the petitions had already been pending for over ten months without any consideration on admission. They pointed out that the offer of Rs. 3 crores against a claim exceeding Rs. 19 crores could not be treated as a serious or plausible proposal, and that the shareholding chart produced by the Corporate Debtor's counsel had no bearing on the question of admission and appeared calculated to mislead the Tribunal.

The Tribunal observed that it was unable to appreciate the relevance of the shareholding chart produced by counsel for the Corporate Debtor at this stage, and remarked that the same could only be perceived as an attempt to mislead the Tribunal on the issue before it.

Noting that it had been urged on behalf of the prospective financier that a settlement between the Corporate Debtor and the creditors remained possible, the Tribunal directed that counsel representing the Corporate Debtor, along with the financial creditors seeking to infuse funds and the promoters, would meet the representatives of the creditors in the office of Ms. Eshna Kumar, Advocate, who was present in Court and agreed to mediate, on 17.09.2026. It made clear that if no settlement was reached at this meeting, no further indulgence would be shown in the matter, and directed that the mediator's fee, to be negotiated between the mediator and the Corporate Debtor, would be payable by the Corporate Debtor.

Taking note of apprehensions raised by some creditors that the Corporate Debtor's assets might be siphoned off, the Tribunal directed that no assets of the Corporate Debtor would be parted with in the interim, and that counsel for the financier seeking to revive the company would carry an inventory of all assets of the Corporate Debtor to the mediation meeting and hand over copies of the same to counsel for the creditors.

The matter was directed to be listed for further hearing on 18.09.2026.

Appearances:

For the Applicant: Ms. Varsha Banerjee, Advocate.

For the Respondent: Mr. Prasenjit Keswani, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Rajat Malhotra, Mr. Aditya Vikram Singh and Ms. Shreya Chandhok, Advocates.

Case Title: Unity Small Finance Bank Limited vs. B9 Beverages Limited, IB-580/ND/2025 (with connected IB-668/ND/2025 and other applications).

[Read Order]