By Binay Kumar, Advocate-on-Record, Supreme Court of India; Managing Partner, The Justice Law Partners.
Case: Atibir Industries Co. Ltd. v. State Bank of India
Decision: 26 October 2026
Case No.: Civil Appeal Nos. 13916–13917/2026
Neutral citation: 2026 INSC 1156
Bench: Surya Kant, CJI; Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana, JJ.
Judgment authored by: V. Mohana, J.
Reportability: Reportable
Relevant paragraphs: 43–45
The controversy
A borrower disputed the classification of its loan as a non-performing asset and the assignment of the debt to an asset reconstruction company. Substantial payment had been made during the proceedings; the Court focused on the remaining amount required to resolve the matter.
Settlement directions
The Court directed a further payment of ₹125 crore within twelve weeks, bringing the total to ₹375 crore. The terms addressed release of title documents and securities upon compliance and specified consequences in the event of non-payment.
Limits of the decision
The underlying questions concerning the validity of the NPA classification and assignment were not finally determined as general questions of law. This is chiefly a fact-specific resolution and should not be treated as a precedent fixing compulsory settlement percentages or restricting statutory recovery remedies in other cases.
For parties to bank disputes
Settlement orders require careful attention to deadlines, payment recipients, discharge and release documentation, subsisting proceedings, and default clauses. The operative terms of the specific order remain controlling.
Judgment and editorial note
Supreme Court official judgment entry. This case note is an explanatory summary of the decision and is not legal advice. The operative judgment governs in the event of any discrepancy.