Nicco Uco Alliance Credit Limited has issued a regulatory notice to BSE Limited regarding the publication of a notice for re-lodgement of transfer requests for shares held in physical form. The communication, dated December 31, 2025, was made in compliance with Regulation 30 and 46 of the SEBI (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2015.

Regulatory Compliance and Publication Details

The company published the notice on December 31, 2025, in Kolkata editions of two newspapers to ensure wide dissemination of information to shareholders. The publications included 'The Echo of India' (English) and 'Aarthik Lipi' (Bengali), covering both English and regional language readership.

As required under Regulation 46 of the SEBI regulations, the company has also made this information available on its functional website at www.nuacl.com , ensuring digital accessibility for stakeholders.

Special Window for Share Transfer Requests

The notice informs shareholders about a special window facility available for a period of six months, from July 7, 2025, to January 6, 2026. This facility is specifically designed to facilitate the re-lodgement of transfer requests for shares held in physical form.

Eligibility and Requirements

The facility is available exclusively for transfer deeds that were originally submitted to the company before April 1, 2019, but were subsequently rejected or returned due to documentation deficiencies. Shareholders can re-lodge such transfer deeds after proper rectification, along with the necessary supporting documents.

The company emphasized that it will only be able to accept these share transfer requests up to January 6, 2026, in accordance with SEBI Circular No. SEBI/HO/MIRSD/MIRSD-PoD/P/CIR/2025/97 dated July 2, 2025. As mandated by SEBI regulations, all shares transferred under this specified window will be issued only in dematerialized form.

Contact Information for Shareholders

For further information, assistance, or clarification regarding the re-lodgement process, shareholders can contact the company through multiple channels:

• Address: Nicco House, 2nd Floor, 2, Hare Street, Kolkata-700001
• Email: nufsical@gmail.com , mdnuacl@gmail.com
• Mobile: 9830284385 / 9831257421

The notice was signed by S.S. Majumdar, Company Secretary & Compliance Officer, reflecting the company's commitment to regulatory compliance and shareholder service. This initiative demonstrates the company's proactive approach to facilitating share transfers while adhering to SEBI's regulatory framework for physical share certificates.

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) Kolkata has dismissed UCO Bank's insolvency petition against Nicco Uco Alliance Credit Limited, dealing a significant blow to the bank's debt recovery efforts. The petition, filed under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) 2016, sought recovery of ₹846.47 crores from the corporate debtor.

Case Background and Financial Details

The insolvency petition was filed by UCO Bank as the financial creditor against Nicco Uco Alliance Credit Limited as the corporate debtor. The case details reveal a complex financial relationship dating back over two decades.

Nicco Uco Alliance Credit Limited was originally incorporated as Furmanite Nicco Investment Limited in 1984. The company later became a Non-Banking Financial Company (NBFC) with UCO Bank holding a 30% shareholding. The Reserve Bank of India issued the NBFC certificate on April 28, 1998, but subsequently cancelled it on April 6, 2005, due to the company's deteriorating financial condition.

Limitation Grounds for Dismissal

The NCLT's primary reason for dismissing the petition was the limitation bar. The tribunal ruled that the 2025 petition was time-barred for a 2004 default, creating a substantial time gap that could not be adequately bridged.

UCO Bank's Argument on Debt Acknowledgments

The bank argued that multiple One-Time Settlement (OTS) proposals submitted by the corporate debtor constituted acknowledgments of debt, thereby extending the limitation period under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

NCLT's Legal Analysis

The tribunal identified a critical flaw in UCO Bank's limitation argument. Despite the series of OTS proposals, there was a crucial 9-year gap between the original 2004 default and the first OTS proposal in 2013. The NCLT emphasized that acknowledgments of debt can only extend limitation if made within the prescribed three-year limitation period from the date of default.

Key Legal Findings

• The original default occurred in 2004, making the limitation period expire in 2007
• The first OTS proposal was made only in 2013, well beyond the limitation period
• OTS proposals can constitute acknowledgment of debt only if made within the subsisting limitation period
• Once a debt becomes time-barred, subsequent acknowledgments cannot revive it for IBC proceedings

The tribunal relied on established legal precedents, including judgments in Dena Bank vs. C. Shivakumar Reddy and Sesh Nath Singh cases, which clearly establish that acknowledgments must be made before the limitation period expires.

Corporate Debtor's Defense

Nicco Uco Alliance Credit Limited raised multiple defenses against the petition:

Financial Service Provider Exclusion

The company argued that as a former NBFC, it was excluded from IBC proceedings under Section 3(7). However, the NCLT did not need to decide this issue given the limitation bar.

Procedural Objections

The corporate debtor challenged the petition's validity, pointing out that the date of default was handwritten in the revised petition after initial filing, questioning the document's authenticity.

Timeline Disputes

The company maintained that if any default occurred, it was in 2004 when it was declared a Non-Performing Asset (NPA), not in 2023 as claimed by the bank.

Final Ruling and Implications

The NCLT concluded that the petition was "hopeless and palpably time-barred." The tribunal noted that UCO Bank failed to explain how to bridge the 9-year gap between the 2004 default and the 2013 OTS proposal to bring the petition within the prescribed limitation period.

The dismissal represents a significant legal precedent regarding the application of limitation laws in IBC proceedings. It reinforces that financial creditors cannot indefinitely delay insolvency proceedings and then rely on subsequent acknowledgments to revive time-barred debts.

This ruling may impact other pending cases where financial creditors are attempting to recover old debts through the IBC route, emphasizing the importance of timely action within prescribed limitation periods.