NCLT Rejects Daaraa Advance Manufacturing’s Plea To Recover Gold Machinery From Damara Gold CIRP Process

Mumbai: The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) has dismissed an application filed by Daaraa Advance Manufacturing Solutions Pvt Ltd seeking possession and relocation of plant and machinery belonging to Damara Gold Pvt Ltd, which is undergoing corporate insolvency resolution proceedings (CIRP).

Company Claimed Machinery Was Leased

The application was filed under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), claiming that the machinery had been leased to the applicant (Daaraa Advance Manufacturing Solutions ) under an Equipment Lease Agreement dated April 1, 2025. The applicant also sought permission to recover around 600 grams of gold dust/residue allegedly embedded in the machinery.

The NCLT had in January 2026 had admitted the insolvency application filed by PNB’s against the Damara Gold for default exceeding ₹39 crore, arising mainly from invocation of bank guarantees worth ₹54.34 crore. The debits led to classification of the account as NPA on 30.06.2023.

Machinery To Remain Under RP Custody

The NCLT noted that Damara Gold had entered CIRP on December 8, 2025, following a Section 7 petition filed by Punjab National Bank. The tribunal observed that the machinery was owned by the corporate debtor and therefore had to remain under the custody and control of the Resolution Professional (RP) during the CIRP.

The RP had opposed the application, contending that Daaraa Advance Manufacturing Solutions was not an independent third-party entity. According to the RP, there were common directorships and close family connections between the applicant and Damara Gold’s suspended management. The tribunal noted that Jagdish Pahuja, a suspended director of Damara Gold, was also a director of the applicant, while the lease agreement was executed by his wife, Deepa Pahuja, on behalf of the applicant.

On the applicant’s claim regarding 600 grams of gold residue, the tribunal rejected the plea, observing that the applicant had not raised the claim in its earlier correspondence and that possession of the premises and machinery was taken by the RP on January 22, 2026. The tribunal held that the assertion that such valuable residue continued to remain embedded in the machinery during the intervening period was an “afterthought away from facts.

” It is an undisputed fact that the Respondent, vide email dated 04.02.2026, forwarded the Public Announcement and Process Note to the Applicant and called upon it to submit an (expression of Interest )EoI for leasing the plant and machinery. Despite the same, the Applicant chose not to participate in the process. Had the Applicant intended to take the plant and machinery on lease, it could have participated in the process. Its failure to do so indicates that it had no intention of taking the plant and machinery on lease and that the present application has been filed only for sake of litigation. Therefore, the said contention is untenable,”the order copy read.

The tribunal also upheld the RP’s decision to invite Expressions of Interest (EoI) for leasing the machinery. The Committee of Creditors had approved the process on January 29, 2026, and the RP issued the public announcement on February 2. The applicant was also invited to participate but did not submit an EoI.

To get details on exclusive and budget-friendly property deals in Mumbai & surrounding regions, do visit: https://budgetproperties.in/